[License-review] Request for approval of the Non-Coercive Copyleft Licence (NCCL) 1.0

[Richard Fontana]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:54:40AM +1200, Tim Makarios wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 13:49 -0400, Kevin Fleming wrote:
> > Is it practical for a license to be considered for 'open source' usage
> > if the license text implies that there is a single copyright
> > holder/licensor (there are multiple references to 'I' in this
> > license)? How would this be expected to work if someone produces a
> > Derived Work and distributes it? Who is 'I' in that situation?
> 
> The use of "I" comes straight from SimPL 2.0, which is OSI-approved, and
> is meant to be equivalent to GPL 2.0.  But I'm not especially attached
> to this wording, so I'd be willing to change it if it is going to be a
> problem.  What do others think about this?

I've used "I" to stand for the licensor in a license I've worked on,
copyleft-next. 

> Would "we" in the case of a single author be less strange or legally
> problematic?

In copyleft-next, for a while I wavered between using 'I' and 'We'; I
ended up thinking 'I' was better because 'We' would seem strange in
cases where there was just one individual licensor.

Richard