This requirement, a form of which has been in the GNU GPL since at
least GNU GPLv1, really makes no particular sense in a section devoted
generally to the permission to distribute source code (for many
conceivable source code derivative works this would seem to be an
unreasonable requirement if read literally). But if it is desirable to
preserve this on policy grounds it can't be limited to the object code
distribution section. Perhaps it could be bundled into the definition
of Legal Notices somehow, but I have my doubts.
This is a good example of an issue that I think should, ideally, be
discussed/debated by strong copyleft-favoring project developers and
users. Delete for now.
Section 4 (on verbatim source distribution) having been quite
simplified, it seems sensible to fold it into the following more
complex section on distributing Derivative Works in Source Code form.
At the same time, there is some simplification of the language. For
example, the notion that it is necessary to add an explicit
requirement concerning section 7 additional requirements seems of
dubious importance. If a licensor does not bother to include a new
allowed additional requirement, that is the licensor's choice and no
such requirement is imposed downstream. If the licensor includes a new
allowed requirement by way of inclusion of third-party
copyleft-next-compatible material, the requirement to preserve Legal
Notices takes care of the notice problem.
Another simplification is the removal of a requirement to include a
"relevant date" (GNU GPLv2: "the date of any change") when one
provides notice of a modification. This is better treated as a
normative practice as it is often unobserved in the real world. I do
not question the importance of good 'legal' coding practices, but just
because they are good doesn't mean they should be license conditions,
particularly if they will very often be ignored.
Previous commits if anything added complexity to the architecture of
the license draft in addressing the patent license grant.
A problem noted during the course of GNU GPLv3 drafting was that
existing drafts did not bind the original licensor to grant the same
patent license that (in certain such drafts) distributors were
required to grant (or make equivalent nonassert covenants).
The ultimate solution adopted in GNU GPLv3 was to have a provision in
its section 11 that paralleled the automatic licensing provision (in
its section 10), applicable to upstream GPLv3 "contributors"
(copyright-holding licensors).
In my previous commits I made things more complicated by such
mechanisms as a definition of "Predecessor Program" and so forth.
In this commit a simpler solution is proposed: just include the patent
license grant along with the basic copyright license grant in the
current form of the "basic permissions" section. The effect ought to
be similar to that of GNU GPLv3, since those who create and Distribute
Derivative Works must license the entire Derivative Work under
copyleft-next, which means they must grant the copyright and patent
licenses set forth in the basic-permissions section.
This allows some simplification of the text.
Applies patches from Luis R. Rodriguez. As noted by Luis, this
reflects the present gitorious.org name and reflects better with other
foo-next git trees out there.
The current scheme may be getting too complex to be desirable or
workable, but anyway it moves the definition of "Essential Patent
Claims" to section 0, generalizes it so that it can apply to upstream
licenses You receive and downstream licenses You grant. The first
paragraph of what was GNU GPLv3 sec. 11 is deleted as unnecessary, and
a provision is added making clear that granting the same sort of
patent license is required if "You" Distribute a Derivative Work. This
structure is a bit like what was used in the second discussion draft
of GNU GPLv3. But a simpler, more elegant approach would be
preferable.
This is quite awkwardly worded and a different approach may be needed
altogether but the idea here is ultimately to find a way to reword the
patent license grant so that it is from "Us".
This commit adds a section based closely on the ingenious first
sentence of section 5 of the Apache License 2.0, which essentially
says it is a copyright license condition that upstream contributions
are licensed by default under the license you received. It thus
codifies the customary "inbound=outbound" rule of FLOSS projects and
arguably renders unnecessary separate CLAs or the like (or at least
defeats some of the arguments asserted in their favor).
There is something awkward here that will have to be fixed
somehow. The problem essentially has to do with precisely defining who
"We" are, given the "explicit licensor" architecture of the current
draft. It may be helpful to think about how the issue is treated in
practice in Apache License contexts.
RMS has said (in at least one public address he gave in 2006) that he
added GNU GPLv2 section 7 (the original liberty-or-death clause) to
clarify an issue that he believed to be already a consequence of the
existing provisions of the license. I believe he must have meant the
"no further restrictions" clause, which was present in GNU GPLv1.
Joining these historically separate provisions in one section will
make it easier to reason about possible further changes.
Previous commits allow this significant simplification of what is now
sec. 3 (corresponding to sec. 4 of GNU GPLv3). "As you receive it" and
"in any medium" seem (at least now, given previous changes) redundant.
The affirmative requirement to publish an "appropriate copyright
notice" is deleted. This makes Copyleft.next conform with typical GNU
GPL practice in the real world. If someone receives source code from
upstream, and does not modify it, they will in nearly all cases *not*
bother to publish an "appropriate copyright notice" on the source code
that is not already present (in other words, licensees do generally
preserve copyright notices, but they don't fix upstream "failures" to
place copyright notices, and for good reason. It is typically going to
be difficult for the downstream licensee to figure out what the
"appropriate copyright notice" should be for an unmodified upstream
work, and it is unreasonable to expect the licensee to do such work.
One wonders whether this requirement is a holdover from the era before
US entry into Berne.
The requirement added in GNU GPLv3 to keep intact not only basic kinds
of legal notices but also any allowed additional requirements was
deleted in this commit. I now think my deletion (made a day or so
before writing this commit message) was in error, but the solution may
be to revise the definition of "Legal Notices".
To my recollection, "price" was substituted for "fee" in the course of
GNU GPLv3 drafting because of a concern that some mistakenly believed
the position of the FSF to be that one could charge for "services" but
not "sell copies" (potentially without providing services). This was
so despite language in GNU GPLv2 and draft GNU GPLv3 stating
otherwise, and despite such guidance from the FSF as
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
At this point, given the changes made and the degree to which the FSF
has clarified this point (and the degree to which the right to
commercialize is understood to be fundamental to FLOSS licensing), it
seems safe to revert to using "fee". (The changes made in the previous
commit call for use of one verb for both the "sale" of a copy and the
provision of a for-pay service.)
This commit rewrites the basic permissions section in a more
conventional legal manner (modeled to some degree on the CC 3.0
license grant language), and incorporates the clarifications given in
the "verbatim copies" section.
Unlike the GNU licenses, the license grant now explicitly refers to
public display and public performance rights. In some (possibly rare
for software) cases, specific mention of these rights could
conceivably be advantageous.
Splits automatic licensing provision into two sections, including a
new "No Further Restrictions" section. The liberty-or-death provision
is moved up to follow immediately the no-further-restrictions section
to which it is closely related.
Subsection 5c is modified such that this copyleft clause fails to
apply if the licensor licenses a Covered Work under Proprietary Terms
(currently undefined).
The availability of proprietary relicensing (Bradley Kuhn's term) for
licensors of a GNU GPL-licensed work with copyright ownership
consolidated in one entity is arguably a significant flaw in the GNU
GPL. It has been assumed to be unavoidable as a consequence of the GNU
GPL being a copyright license. I have spoken previously about the
reputational harm to strong copyleft caused by proprietary relicensing
business models and the social harm that results from overreaching
interpretations of the GNU GPL that such business models have encouraged.
