[Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing

Tue Jun 28 17:00:11 UTC 2011

And I should add that a GNU-copyleft-only option may be a valid option; there are certainly people in our community who wouldn't trust anyone else. But if that's what option 4 will be, it should be transparent about that and not say "GNU-recommended licenses" with the attendant implication that the list might include non-GNU licenses. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org 
> [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org] 
> On Behalf Of villalu at gtlaw.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:35 AM
> To: patrice-emmanuel.schmitz at be.unisys.com; allison at lohutok.net
> Cc: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing
> 
> I'd second that. If you're going to use their list, might as 
> well just go ahead and say "GNU licenses." It would be the 
> same list, but would be more transparent.
> 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>     Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with 
> requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform 
> you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this 
> communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise 
> specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, 
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties 
> under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing 
> or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
>  
>     The information contained in this transmission may 
> contain privileged and confidential information. It is 
> intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
> that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication 
> of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not 
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply 
> email and destroy all copies of the original message. To 
> reply to our email administrator directly, please send an 
> email to mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com.
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>  
> > From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org]
> > On Behalf Of Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:26 AM
> > To: Allison Randal
> > Cc: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing
> > 
> > A formal reference to the FSF list of "recommended licenses" 
> > is not appropriate, and even less to the "FSF recommended copyleft 
> > licenses", because in the FSF "GPL centric" mind, the GPL 
> (read GPLv3 
> > and AGPLv3) is the sole acceptable license. Therefore the 
> list will be 
> > (very) short: any time a copyleft enters in conflict with the GPL 
> > copyleft, the license is not recommended (worse: you are 
> "urged" not 
> > to use it !) This is contradicted by the reality of license 
> > proliferation. In fact they are several OSI approved 
> copyleft licenses 
> > (including the OSL, GPL, EUPL, Eclipse etc.) and it should 
> not be too 
> > difficult to make a subset.
> > Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
> > Legal expert, www.OSOR.eu
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org]
> > On Behalf Of Allison Randal
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:18 PM
> > To: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing
> > 
> > One thing dropping Option Four doesn't cover is cultural 
> affiliation 
> > of various projects with FSF vs OSI. The FSF has graciously 
> created a 
> > page listing copyleft licenses that they recommend, which 
> we can use 
> > as the "FSF" option.
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/recommended-copylefts.html
> > 
> > So, with that, I'm suggesting this revised text for Option 
> Four, with 
> > the actual link given in the FAQ pages (so it's easy to 
> update later 
> > without updating the text of all the generated agreement documents 
> > various projects are using):
> > 
> > ------
> > (Option Four) As a condition on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 
> > and 2.2, We agree to license the Contribution only under 
> the terms of 
> > the license or licenses which We are using on the 
> Submission Date for 
> > the Material or any licenses on the Free Software 
> Foundation's list of 
> > "Recommended copyleft licenses" on or after the Effective Date, 
> > whether or not such licenses are subsequently disapproved 
> (including 
> > any right to adopt any future version of a license if permitted).
> > ------
> > 
> > Thoughts, comments?
> > 
> > Allison
> > 
> > On 06/23/2011 08:43 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
> > > I think that this is fine too
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > > [mailto:harmony-drafting-bounces at lists.harmonyagreements.org] On 
> > > Behalf Of Walli Stephen
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:53 AM
> > > To: Allison Randal
> > > Cc: harmony-drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Harmony-Drafting] copyleft outbound licensing
> > >
> > > FWIW I like this as an approach.  I think it covers any 
> real world 
> > > situations I can remember.  stephe
> > >
> > > On 2011-06-22, at 6:30 PM , Allison Randal wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mentioned in the meeting minutes, carried on here for
> > further discussion.
> > >>
> > >> We've talked a lot about how to handle copyleft licenses in the 
> > >> outbound license section. All the current options 
> include copyleft 
> > >> licenses, but the discussion has ranged over whether we
> > can draft an
> > >> option that covers all copyleft licenses and only copyleft
> > licenses. 
> > >> We added Option Four as an attempt at that, but later
> > discovered that
> > >> the FSF also recommends permissive licenses. One proposal was an 
> > >> option for "any copyleft license", with a suggestion that
> > copyleft is
> > >> well enough understood to need no definition. But, the following 
> > >> discussion indicated that there were many different
> > understandings of
> > >> what copyleft means, and that how to define copyleft in a 
> > >> sufficiently broad-but-narrow and future-proof fashion is
> > less than obvious.
> > >>
> > >> I had a conversation with Bradley Kuhn this week, where 
> he pointed 
> > >> out that generically defining copyleft licenses isn't
> > useful, because
> > >> for the copyleft philosophy there's a huge difference 
> between GPL, 
> > >> LGPL and AGPL, and projects make very intentional choices
> > on those distinctions.
> > >>
> > >> My proposal, based on Bradley's comments, is that we drop Option 
> > >> Four, and in our usage guide explain that the best way 
> to capture 
> > >> "only copyleft licenses" is Option Two with an explicit
> > list of the
> > >> copyleft licenses the project supports.
> > >>
> > >> Comments?
> > >>
> > >> Allison
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> > >> Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > >> 
> > http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
> > >
> > > Stephen R. Walli, Technical Director, OuterCurve Foundation
> > > website: http://www.outercurve.org
> > > mailto:  swalli at outercurve.org
> > > mobile:  +1 425 522 3409
> > > skype:   stephen.walli
> > > blog:    http://stephesblog.blogs.com  (Once More unto the Breach)
> > > Linkdin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrwalli
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenrwalli
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> > > Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > > 
> http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
> > > </PRE><font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000">Please
> > consider the
> > > environment before printing this email.</font> <br> <br> <font 
> > > face="Verdana" size="1" color="#808080"> The information
> > contained in
> > > this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. 
> > It has been sent for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient(s). If the 
> > reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby 
> > notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, 
> dissemination, 
> > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its 
> > contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> > communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all 
> > copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to 
> > postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > </font><PRE>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> > Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
> > _______________________________________________
> > Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> > Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> > http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
> > 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> http://www.gtlaw.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
> 