Conversation
Notices
-
@copyleftnext I don’t understand point 3 in http://ur1.ca/cmb51
- Ondřej Michálek likes this.
-
@arnebab If you do proprietary relicensing, copyleft-next becomes non-copyleft. I.e. if upstream can proprietize, so can everyone else.
-
@arnebab I've struggled the most with that provision - it is the most "GPLv3-ish". Would like to make simpler w/o making lengthier.
-
GPLv3-ish in a stylistic sense. Of course !GPLv3 like all pre- #copyleft-next copyleft licenses #fail's to address proprietary relicensing
Evan Prodromou likes this. -
hmm, similar to my "as NC as I keep it" proposal for CC NC users who claim no commercial interest.
-
@fontana that sounds pretty bad: It means that I cannot get a project non-proprietizeable by getting my changes into it.
-
@fontana Essentially it sounds like you want to take copyright away from the authors if they do not want others to proprietize.
-
@zotz I think that is an insult but I'm not sure :-)
Evan Prodromou likes this. -
@arnebab I don't understand - please explain. Note provision should only affect an original copyright-aggregating upstream licensor.
-
@arnebab I am trying to discourage use of copyleft with monopolizing right to proprietize. If you think that's bad policy, use !GPL / !AGPL.
Evan Prodromou likes this. -
@arnebab Put simply, for a given copylefted work, one entity should not have sole right to escape from copyleft.
-
not intended as one. it is a good idea on first glance from what I see.
-
@fontana I think the problem is not the copyleft, but how some devs don't realize how bad it is to give away their ©s to upstream.
engelnyst likes this. -
Like when Sun/Oracle req'd those patching OOo to assign the © to them, so that this code would be © them -> they won't have to follow GPL
-
@usrshare In many such cases upstream doesn't accept contributions anyway
-
In that case, I think they have full rights to proprietize the code. Creating new copyleft licenses only makes it harder for code to spread.
-
In fact, the FSF already tried to solve this problem with this article: http://ur1.ca/cmfyj
-
@usrshare that's an argument against any new !fs copyleft licenses including updates. NB #copyleft-next is #GPL / #AGPL compatible.
-
@usrshare commendable (if years late) but doesn't solve the problem.
-
a wrinkle: perhaps have this only kick in where the work / program has multiple human contributors (as opposed to multiple copyright holders
-
see: http://ur1.ca/cmgmy - NB, I am not an NC proponent.
drew Roberts and engelnyst like this. -
@arenbab not true. if you can get your changes in (ie some (c) holder committed to maintain copyleft), clause is irrelevant.
-
Gar, apologies for mispel @arnebab. I should get used to dispensing with @ user for simple replies. :)
-
@zotz I notice you come up with some creative licensing ideas. We could use someone like you in the #copyleft-next movement.
-
count me in. (I think.) now I just have to find a store open at this hour with some time for sale... ~;-)
-
@fontana indeed, there are many of us who would _like_ to contribute to #copyleft-next, but NALs and stretched too thin to be much help.
-
That's totally crazy. A proprietary-relicensing poison pill!
Christopher Allan Webber and Richard Fontana like this. -
I'll take the red pill ;)
Evan Prodromou likes this. -
@fontana then you expect the one who wrote a prog to adopt a license which makes his code non-copyleft when he uses it for something else?
-
@fontana essentially I could not use that license to release some code as GPL and keep using it for something else, right?
-
@fontana what would be the advantage for the developer of using that over using the GPL?
-
@arnebab Goal is for developers/companies inclined towards copyleft-based prioprietary dual-license/ #opencore to avoid #copyleft-next.
-
@arnebab The provision specifies GPL/AGPL as exception (as well as all current OSI licenses and later releases of #copyleft-next ).
-
@arnebab Just based on the poison pill provision? No advantage other than ecosystem purity, which may be an advantage. #copyleft-next
-
@arnebab Developer using #copyleft-next for new project is making strong ethical statement which other copyleft licenses #fail to make.
-
you hold the copyright, you can do what you want. but if you copyleft-next (#CLN anyone) your code, you can't do non-Free w/out letting all.
-
@zotz consensus on mailing list was to reject encouraging TLA for #copyleft-next. OK if it develops naturally I guess.
-
#copyleftnext - would be nice if it could have a preamble stating purpose, ethos, guiding principle, etc.
-
#copyleftnext: would be nice if an effort was made to specifically cover more than code.
-
@zotz considered that early on, decided software focus was desirable, but have thought of doing non-code-specific variant
-
@zotz a while back there was a brief 'statement of purpose', but I believe I decided it took up too much space
-
#copyleftnext: seems 10. Outbound (A)GPL Compatibility. seems a problem. puts work at risk of the weakest part of each license. Better ways?
-
#copyleftnext: 14.a. Any claim of damageswrt the work result in a revocation of license to the work and all works of person claimed against?
-
@zotz however your question calls to mind something I have been thinking about, will put in Nonexistent Issue Tracker
-
the two need to be compatible without gaining the weaknesses of each for the other.
-
I find it helps one to trust the people behind the license wrt pulling a fast one in the future.
Richard Fontana likes this. -
well, we limit all we can within the law. some laws say you can't. any law says we can't take back all licenses we are not paid for?
-
I am not sure this is a good idea though. How could it be abused by an evil actor?
-
do I misread? can damages ever be collected despite 14?oops replying with the wrong assumed context. that goes for 14.
-
in context: I have been calling for a stronger copyleft for #BYSA for a good while now. Do not want to see extra protection given away.
-
@zotz if #copyleft-next not #GPL compatible anti-license-proliferationist arguments become a bit stronger.
-
@zotz local law may limit reach of 14. Is about user suing upstream distributor for damages. Standard in free and proprietary-COTS licenses.
-
I am speaking for what happens if they successfully sue for damages. Lose license to all my works they have not paid me for. ???
-
#copyleft licenses do have this drawback. Making them outward compatible to counteract opens the weakest of all weakness though.
-
#copyleft-next: need a distinction between mere aggregation and "creative" aggregation where the creative aggregation/collection gets ©
-
#copyleft-next: in the case of "creative" aggregation, Freedom should be enforced at the aggregate level and the included works.
-
@fontana movement, heh. somehow I find every project as a movement of a kind with "business model".
-
that may be but it is not what I want for my photos for instance. since mixing copyleft licensed works can be an issue, a good solution=good
-
@zotz to me that means, that I won’t use copyleft-next. The code I have on my disk is mine even when I published a copy.
-
@zotz and I don’t want to publish anything under non-copyleft licenses (the name copyleft-next seems strange if it enforces non-copyleft…)
-
@fontana imagine that you used copyleft-next. Then you use a part of your code in an unfree project by accident → Your code is non-copyleft.
-
@fontana examples for an unfree project are a PhD where you don’t yet know if you’ll be allowed to publish your code.
-
@fontana I want copyleft, and I don’t want to endanger that copyleft just because I might reuse some of my own code.
-
@fontana and what happens if you wrote some code and then copyleft-next a later version. Can you still use the old version? How to prove?
-
@arnebab The proprietary relicensing poison pill is a protection against subversion of copyleft.
-
@arnebab Poison pill triggered only if publication has occurred, under copyleft-next and proprietary license.
-
@arnebab How could you "by accident" license your code under a proprietary license? Poison pill triggered by intentional conduct by you.
-
@arnebab Either not unfree project in relevant sense (because no distribution has occurred) or perhaps can benefit from 1-year grace period
-
@arnebab If you want to reserve right to release your code under both copyleft & proprietary, #copyleft-next is not for you. Use GPL or AGPL
-
@arnebab #copyleft-next doesn't affect ownership, but poison pill intended to make proprietary relicensing strategy pointless
-
@arnebab in PhD situation it sounds like the university would be licensor, not student.
-
@arnebab I don't understand the question.
-
@fontana what's good about more people being able to proprietize. why not commit licensor to not proprietarize?
engelnyst likes this. -
@fontana plus, does it also cover the case of licensing under a permissive license, so that some others can proprietarize?
-
@lxoliva b/c most proprietary relicensors use exclusive right of propr relicense as their revenue source. cl-n would prevent that.
-
@fontana how about making it OSI&FSF licenses instead? avoids non-FS exemption and disfavoring the source of copyleft concept
-
@fontana making ethical statements about sw through a license that uses OSI as a reference while omitting GNU&FSF seems misguided to me ;-)
-
I think that is what is intended. It is a way of getting a binding promise that you will treat others as equal to yourself. #copyleft-next
engelnyst likes this. -
it is a way to bind you to only use a copyleft license for the code you license #copyleft-next. or else!
engelnyst likes this. -
extra interest from those wanted to be treated equally/fairly in whatever community develops around the code?
-
@fontana it is only a “protection” for one who objects to having their code proprietarized, who won't do it on one's own anyway!
-
difficult to do that from what I have been told in another arena. what consideration is give in exchange for that binding promise?
-
@lnxwalt280 it wouldn't prevent that at all: they'd just use another existing copyleft license, or come up with their own
-
elsewhere, OK, with 140 character limit it might be nice. #copyleft-next #CLN
-
@lxoliva I don't see a way to do that that binds the original licensor. If you can think of a way please let me know!
-
@lxoliva We assume if one person can get it under a permissive license, anyone could. GPL has similar assumptions built in.
-
@fontana state it as a binding promise by the licensor, making room for damages should licensor not comply?
-
@fontana licensor can get appoint one single chosen party to proprietarize, without running afoul of the poison pill
-
@lxoliva if we're talking about same thing, I originally had FSF instead of OSI, but it was !problematic.
-
@lxoliva Point of the provision is to discourage proprietary relicensing practices by the licensor itself.
-
@fontana I'm suggesting using only licenses approved by both
-
@lxoliva The damages issue is the problem. But this is worth exploring.
-
@fontana what was problematic about it?
-
@fontana exactly, but using a proxy to do so is no better. think Microvell
-
@fontana state licensor recognize that proprietary relicensing'd cause damages of at least $$$ to licensees & don't exclude from liability
-
since Novell became Attachmate, should Microvell become Microtchmate? it sounds awfully funny
-
@lxoliva Not sure that would work. Cf. FSF long insistence that GPL is "not a contract".
-
@lxoliva Not sure you understand the target of the provision. It's not "secret proprietization".
-
@fontana that the GPL isn't shouldn't require copyleft-next not to be one; plus, in .br, it *is* a (special) contract: a unilateral grant
-
@lxoliva Not sure what you're envisioning is enforceable, but I'm aware of the general idea. It's already in the Nonexistent Issue Tracker.
-
@lxoliva FSF doesn't have true license approval process
-
@fontana I got that. let me try to be clearer. A publishes sw under copyleft-next, then wants to monetize on proprietary licensing
-
@fontana now, A can't do that directly without enabling competitors to also do so
-
@fontana so A enters a contract with B, granting B a permissive license so that B proprietarizes and funnels profits back to A
-
@fontana does process matter more than whether the license is listed as FS/OS on the corresponding web page (at a certain date)?
-
@lxoliva that is not the target of the poison pill. Old-fashioned MySQL dual-licensing and the like is the target.
-
@fontana old-fashioned MySQL dual-licensing is what I described A couldn't do directly, so it would resort to B to accomplish the same!
-
@lxoliva I have to check back on why I did it - might have been some additional or other reason. It's a reasonable complaint.
-
@fontana if the permissive licensing is limited to B, and B can't pass it on, the end result is the same, so there's a hole to plug
-
@lxoliva no, fact that MySQL AB did the proprietary licensing directly was key
-
@lxoliva I don't believe so. Once the Nonexistent Issue Tracker exists I will encourage you to file one or several bugs
-
@fontana it's like Microsoft and Novell agreeing to each do part of sth that, if done by a single party, would not be permitted by GPLv2
-
@fontana do you see the similarity between the Microvell agreement and the exclusive contract to escape the poison pill between A and B?
-
@lxoliva no I don't see any similarity
-
@fontana I guess that's why you're missing the point. think “outsourcing the license violation” to B by A
-
@fontana A/M$ can't do proprietary relicensing/patent licensing itself without enabling everyone downstream to do so, so...
-
@fontana ... it procures the proprietary/GPLv2ed software distribution to B/Novell, thereby working around the license provision...
-
@fontana ... it would have run afoul of should it distribute the software itself
-
@lxoliva sorry, this should have read “proprietary software/patent licensing”
-
@lxoliva FSF list is not neutral towards free software; it discourages GPL-incompatible in similar terms as proprietary.
-
@engelnyst that's just plain false. the FSF doesn't regard GPL-incompatible Free Software as unethical
-
@lxoliva there is no license violation. That's precisely the challenge.
-
@lxoliva That is okay, because it makes proprietary relicensing invisible. It's the fact that one licensor is doing it that's the problem.
-
@lxoliva one of the basic principles of #copyleft-next is that it is impossible to miss the point :-)
-
@fontana just like there wasn't any GPLv2 violation in Microvell. that's what makes it a loophole
-
@fontana or do you actually want companies to procure 3rd parties to do proprietary relicensing of their copyleft-next software...
-
@fontana ... as a means to escape the section that would then have granted everyone else permission to do so?
-
@fontana what's invisible about A's advertising “we can't proprietarily license the sw to you, but our partner B will”?
-
@lxoliva If I ever see something like that happen, I will propose revision to #copyleft-next
-
@lxoliva One principle of #copyleft-next (besides not being able to miss point) is it is pointless to try to avoid all loopholes.
-
@fontana now, where's that program released under copyleft-next? :-)
-
@fontana it seems unwise to leave known loopholes open; might as well remove the requirement that the loophole invalidates
-
@lxoliva Not if net effect of provision on conduct is positive. No way to prove, though, admittedly.
-
@fontana what's positive about procuring a 3rd party to do proprietary relicensing on one's behalf?!?
-
@zotz Maybe on the contrary? Forbid as much as possible to corporations, humans reusing their work is not an issue.
-
@zotz ... For a many-contribs FOSS, the project is bound, not your contribution. It's not the same with the focus of !CC NC, I think?
-
@fontana Thanks. Yes; IMHO this is a point for a faq though: PR clause seems to say you give up your right to reuse your code, non-free.
-
@lxoliva it makes the business model non-viable.
-
@fontana huh? what's non-viable about signing a contract and licensing permissively to a partner who'll sell proprietary and pay you back?
-
@lxoliva What is being targeted is use of copyleft as a means of promoting proprietary license sales
-
@zotz or else you don’t have copyleft anymore…
-
@zotz or extra interest from those trying to get you to make a mistake, so they can non-copyleft your code…
-
the though was more of allowing a single human to #copyleft-next and go private but not a corporation and not with contributors.
engelnyst likes this. -
hmmmm, got to consider this. is it an attack vector to defeat the license?
-
could be and this sort of attack should be considered and a solutions discussed. #copyleft-next #CLN
-
@fontana which is precisely what this collusion accomplishes. do you really not see that?
-
@lxoliva the 'weak' sense is the monopolization of proprietization. But harder to see how copyleft FUD problem arises in your scenario.
-
@fontana don't you realize my scenario is equivalent to the one you oppose, just using a proxy?!?
-
@fontana I don't approve of proprietary relicensing, but anyone who can do it can choose not to use a license that rules it out => pointless
Arne Babenhauserheide likes this. -
@lxoliva Not sure it's pointless; it sends a message about proprietary relicensing being a bad thing
Richard Fontana likes this. -
Furthermore, what about copyleft codebase accquired by corporation that then decides to do proprietary relicensing?
-
(Granted, a project intending to do that can just never accept copyright assignments)
Richard Fontana likes this. -
@cwebber if the license was copyleft-next 0.1, they'd have to choose an exclusive partner for that
-
@lxoliva it is not equivalent.
-
@lxoliva Not completely pointless. It protects reputation of #copyleft-next.
-
@cwebber #copyleft-next poison pill would seem to cover that case
-
@fontana why not? it's still a monopoly, just exercised through a proxy to work around the license provisions
-
@lxoliva what's with this "0.1"? In #copyleft-next land we use #SemanticVersioning
-
@lxoliva because key to proprietary relicensing problem is identify of copyleft and proprietary licensor.
-
@fontana s/identify/identity/?
-
@fontana 0.1.0, sorry, my mistake. been up for too long.
-
@fontana are you saying you don't mind if they engage in exclusive proprietary relicensing (through a third party)?
-
@fontana and presumably it's ok if Microsoft gets Novell to distribute GPLed software for them, while offering proprietary patent licenses?
-
@fontana are we clear on the scenario? A wants to do the proprietary relicensing you oppose, but can't, so...
-
@fontana ... A enters a deal with B in which B gets an exclusive permission to do proprietary relicensing on A's behalf, paying A back
-
@fontana if B were a department of A, it would run afoul of the license; why do you not mind when it's a shell company that serves A alone?
-
@lxoliva yes, sorry
-
@lxoliva this has historically not happened SFAIK, perhaps because no license has addressed issue before
-
@lxoliva From a 'business model' perspective I'm not sure your scenario is realistic or could work, so may not be worth worrying about
-
@fontana the exact use of a proxy to escape effects of license conditions has already happened and precipitated a big change in GPLv3
-
@lxoliva if this becomes a problem we can fix in #copyleft-next 0.2.0 or 1.7.0 or whatever. Revision cadence will not be like #GPL.
-
@fontana now, it looks like you don't want to learn from history, or you don't want to fix the problem for real (just for the show), so...
-
@lxoliva It hasn't ever happened to my knowledge, so it's not a policy concern
-
@fontana why wouldn't it? if proprietary relicensing would be profitable but couldn't be done by oneself, ...
-
@fontana ... get someone else to do the part you can't for a small piece of the pie
-
@fontana no, you can't fix it retroactively, I've already explained that. why do you want to just pretend to fix the problem?
-
@fontana it *has* happened. can you explain the section of GPLv3 that mentions an explicit date otherwise?
-
@lxoliva you can fix it in same sense that you regard GPLv3 as having fixed things or non-things in GPLv2
-
@lxoliva I suspect you may not grok the purpose of the provision. Perhaps I will write something up explaining it.
-
@zotz that’s why I bring it up. It might invalidate the construct, though… The Qt treaty only works on a project-level
-
@arnebab I still don't see how you can proprietary-license "by accident", or how someone could be "tricked" into proprietary licensing.
-
@fontana that makes you a likely target.
joshix likes this. -
That's a "pigeon" or a "mark" in the "grifter" parlance, as I understand it. Understood it. In the 1930s.
Evan Prodromou likes this. -
@engelnyst ... I reuse it for a contract. Or a co-owned startup. Or under CC-by-SA.
-
CC-by-SA for code is a mistake I can make today, with result: a self-slap, and correct it. If I publish under #CLN, it removes copyleft.
Arne Babenhauserheide likes this. -
Contract: 'we don't need you to assign (c), lets publish on this page all packs'. They publish it under my (c) and proprietary terms.
-
@engelnyst Seems unrealistic. We could add free CC licenses, or go back to !problematic use of OSD/FSD. Maybe cure opportunity?
-
@engelnyst That is not you offering a license.
-
@engelnyst the 'co-owned startup' issue I'm not too sympathetic to. But unrealistic anyway.
-
@engelnyst Provision is not self-activating; not magic. Licensee on the copyleft branch has to see what you're doing.
-
@fontana “could I used that snippet under BSD?”
-
Evan Prodromou likes this.
-
Cure sounds ideal tbh. As an extra benefit, an explicit text may discourage CC for code. After all, #CLN is that. :)
-
If you mean CC licenses for code is unrealistic, I beg to disagree here. In a community less aware of licensing, they'll be seen as cool.
-
@fontana maybe I don't, but if its effects can be avoided by as little as hiring a proxy, I call it BS
-
@arnebab Find me a 140-character code snippet that is non-de minimis copyrightable and I will take this more seriously.
-
@arnebab non-archaic BSD licenses are OSI-approved (the only reasonable meaning plain "BSD" can have today), thus exempted.
-
@arnebab More interesting: "can I use that code snippet under my proprietary license". In "selling exceptions" class, in some cases.
-
Evan Prodromou likes this.
-
@engelnyst I know use of CC licenses (incl. free ones) occurs for code. But scenario here is sufficiently unrealistic.
-
@lxoliva Even if you're right, hiring a proxy increases transaction costs, so the provision makes proprietary relicensing most costly.
-
more costly, not 'most' costly
-
@zotz excluding corporations where a corporation is the business entity if a single creator? Seems less than good idea from here.
-
I'm picturing a David Mamet movie, you see. A movie about grifters. People who fool people for a living. It's their livelihood, you see.
-
But these ones trick people into licensing loopholes. I'm thinking Rebecca Pigeon and Joe Mantegna, acting together in a movie.
joshix likes this. -
It might not be smart to allow the exception even for a single human, but suggest better wording if you have it.
-
@fontana I'm sympathetic to that problematization of public licenses, but in this case fair comparison would be to proprietary grant in ToS.
-
@mlinksva yes I suppose so
-
@fontana i.e: (defmacro vec (op &rest args) `(,op (nth (nth 1 ',args) (eval (nth 0 ',args))) (nth (nth 3 ',args) (eval (nth 2 ',args)))))
-
@fontana what if the one I gave the snippet to under BSD then uses it in an unfree system?
-
@fontana but actually I could just send you 10 dents which form the source code (and together are copyrighted).
-
@fontana or for an example of stuff that really happens: post the snippet on stack overflow.
-
how would you keep a corporation from paying a private coder to give them their code as unfree?
-
@arnebab why would you want to put that dent under a copyleft license (leaving aside issue of copyrightability)
-
@arnebab BSD allows this.
-
@arnebab One answer: don't use identica to distribute portions of copyleft-next source code.
-
@arnebab Most of what I see on stackoverflow is of highly dubious copyrightability
-
@arnebab you're in what I call "GPLv3 stet comment mode". You can raise zillions of hypothetical loopholes and horribles about any license.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@arnebab The point is, the unrealistic scenarios you describe are not a problem if we achieve net social gain from the provision.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
I am in what I call the “examine careful before you subscribe to a death trap”-mode.
-
they become more of a problem if we achieve high uptake of the license: Bigger target, more profit to gain by shooting off the copyleft.
-
here the diff between GPLv3 and copyleft-next is: with copyleft-next, you’re f***ed, with GPLv3, you delete the dent to recover.
-
If #CLN can state: I contribute this code under CLN, and any other rights I grant project (licensor) can't superceed this license...
-
I don't know if CLN can state that though in a valid way. Project (licensor) is the first corporation in the chain, if there's any.
-
@arnebab I am not going to worry about hypotheticals involving identica distribution.
-
@arnebab I am pleased to see that you are so optimistic about #copyleft-next uptake
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this. -
since you ignore existing !cc by distribution, I can’t see #copyleft-next as option for licensing. Open your eyes: #Stackoverflow exists.
-
to provide an example to prove you wrong: http://stackoverflow.com/q/14605389/7666 — if this game were CLN, it would now be BSD.
-
what #copyleft-next could achieve if it were to remain obscure is an irrelevant question to me. No users, no problems.
-
then (worker from #licensor) would just found licensor2 which buys your code.
-
The only way to achieve #copyleft-next would be to forbid the programmers to use the code they wrote in another way: Exclusive licensing.
-
But then you don’t need that death trap: Just state that #copyleft-next is an *exclusive* license. You lose your rights to your code.
-
Exclusive copyleft. I've been playing exactly with this concept, I thought it had to be flawed though. #fantasy
-
If you limit it to licensor1, maybe allow it escape route with (c) assign (with which it triggers proprietary relicensing), it shouldnt
-
it shouldn't be exactly "exclusive", nor do you lose your rights. Can't figure out the details though.
-
@fontana I did, and I wrote to you that I did not think I understand it. Sadly your explanation described what I had feared (BSD as threat)
-
@fontana he reused his code under another license which is not covered as allowed license.
-
@engelnyst personally I think that it is unsolvable with copyright. And I also think we don’t need a solution: Just don’t assign ©
-
@arnebab as far as I can tell he didn't offer his code under any license at all.
-
@fontana sure he did: under cc by-sa. (I found that stackoverflow is by-sa these days). Or does it only act if he offers all?
-
@arnebab let's assume you're correct that stackoverflow contribution is captured by this provision (despite 1-year grace period etc)...
-
CLAs are common. Even they don't assign, but give more rights. With CLN, someone else's failed workaround means you lose copyleft.
-
@arnebab loss of #copyleft-next copyleft is then a good thing. Copyleft ridiculous for stackoverflow contributions (at least 1's I've seen)
-
@arnebab earlier version of #copyleft-next provision limited to commercial (but @mlinksva shot down). Would that address your concerns?
-
Proprietary relicensing solution may make you think twice before CLAs. I don't want someone else' mistake to change license in a blink.
-
@fontana did I? All I can remember is https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-July/000012.html
-
@mlinksva hmm I may be misremembering.
-
@fontana oh yeah maybe https://identi.ca/conversation/95420450#notice-96083081 but I may have been joking.
-
No. I don’t agree at all with noncommercial clauses. They create lots of problems with dubious gain.
-
You are not the one to judge what constitutes a copyrightable piece of code. Poems are copyrighted, and often short. Code can be art.
Richard Fontana likes this. -
IMO loss of copyleft is a bad thing in almost all cases. And if #copyleft-next promotes loss of copyleft, its name is wrong.
-
Except if you want the name #copyleft-next to mean “the next thing after copyleft”. You don’t protect #copyleft by endangering it.
-
♻ @arnebab: IMO loss of copyleft is a bad thing in almost all cases. And if #copyleft-next promotes loss of copyleft, its name is wrong.
-
Can't be all; but I wonder if exceptions can be made for such small cases, not fully usable. (This snippet is not (c)able imho though.)
-
Please see: http://ur1.ca/cnyxx Gists on github are normal git repositories; can fork, add, modify. http://ur1.ca/cnyz7
-
@arnebab not that it affects your point, but #copyleft-next is meant to mean "the next copyleft"
-
That’s what I guessed. But if “the next copyleft” says “kill off copyleft by a small mistake”, it’s an euphemism for backstabbing.
-
I think you could reach your goal much easier by providing a template-contract with which a company can copy the !kde trolltech treaty.
-
@fontana I believe you are overestimating the transaction costs of setting up another corporation. I’d say it’s around 7000 HKD.
-
@fontana I do not find this scenario too far-fetched: “Hello, we are from #MySQLAB. We can sue you, or you can buy this from #TheirSQLAB.“
-
That would need a definition of the project (i.e. #qt) and clear breach-conditions (i.e. offered the project under non-fsf approved license)
-
besides: I now read section 3 of CLN again, three times, and I still don’t understand it from the text… http://ur1.ca/cmb51
-
In #germany you can have an employee found a UG for 1€. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unternehmergesellschaft_%28haftungsbeschr%C3%A4nkt%29
-
(I am aware that My in MySQL is not the English possessive pronoun, it is the Finnish/Swedish name My. But who cares.)
-
@arnebab Cool. Did not know about this new company form. In HK there is only the Ltd form, only requires 1 HKD capital. 7000 HKD is legal $.
-
what if AL 5), plus make explicit expectation of contributor that licensor only shares under CLN/OSI/FSF? (http://ur1.ca/co7wu)
-
Remove 'nothwithstanding...'. Imho useless, but even if I'm wrong: removal != deny licensor other rights.
-
Removal = create stronger expectation that licensor is bound to the license (FOSS), by accepting the contribution? #personalagendas
-
I did not know either - until today (I read up on GmbH because I remembered something about 10k, but that was stopped by the conservatives)
-
Personally I'd see only advantages in such revision. It's not conceivable imho to be used for subverting.
-
Or, don't make it legally-proof binding. Make it socially binding. Explicit public commitment makes promise matter. (http://ur1.ca/cojbi)
-
That hardly seems to help when one company is bought out by another. Etc.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the