3 ms·

Fully Open Public Licence

49 points by pabs3 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago
We definitely need something like this. Not sure if this is it, as I, like the author, am not a lawyer. I'd need technology lawyers to analyze it for me. So although it doesn't add anything substantive to the HN discussion, I'd like to voice my approval for any efforts made towards a strong license in this spirit.
ReactiveJelly 3y ago
Interesting. The "why" section answered my questions - it appears to be an even stronger copyleft than the agpl
- prepend 3y ago
  I don’t think so. It seems like the agpl covers everything this does as I don’t think agpl cares about interactive vs non-interactive. That being said, I hope people choose to use this new license.
  - tzs 3y ago
    The difference between GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is: 1. The name. 2. Section 13's title is changed from "Use with the GNU Affero General Public License" to "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License" and this is inserted before its first paragraph: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. 3. Some more is added about how the two licenses work with each other. The whole point of AGPL is to deal with users interactive with the program (but only remotely over computer networks...if they are interacting remotely with it but not via a computer network or if they are interacting locally then AGPL is effectively GPL).
    - whartung 3y ago
      Consider this example: You download a FOPL version of something like cron. You make some changes to this code and run it on your internal servers to schedule some business process. Even though this software, not even the server, even catches a whiff of the internet, since the software has been “Deployed” for a commercial use case, the company is obliged to make the changes to the code publicly available. Simply, this license expands the distribution concept to commercial use, whether anyone else ever encounters it or not.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  Seems like a weird mix of A and L GPL? "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software." Seems to imply you can use a library distributed under this licence and not release the entire program source?
  - phkahler 3y ago
    Looks like a big gaping hole of ambiguity to me. A vague attempt at license compatibility. You don't get to impose terms on code under another license, and WTF does "the requirements of this license are fulfilled" without saying the result must be covered by this license? It's nonsense. There is no room here for "you know what I mean" because at best I think I know what they wish could be, but even if I'm right the details are absent.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > an even stronger copyleft than the agpl Which is a red flag. The AGPL was basically designed to be the strongest possible copyleft FOSS license. When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source (e.g., the SSPL), and that's exactly what ended up happening here.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    > When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" The FSF's stewardship of copyleft has led us to the current status quo, where the GPLv2 is still incredibly common compared to v3, the AGPL is considered niche, and it seems most developers these days prefer permissive licenses anyway. These kinds of new licenses are exactly the breath of fresh air we need. If the existing free software/open source dogma says they're bad, maybe it's the dogma that's wrong.
pabs3 3y ago
I note that this definitely wouldn't comply with the FSD/OSD/DFSG, because it means you are forcing people to communicate source to people they aren't communicating with, for whatever reason; such as because they are a dissident, or on a desert island, or in a domestic violence situation, or in a warzone etc. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
- andybak 3y ago
  From the README: ## What about the Debian "Political Dissident" test? See the above. Pretty much the same thing. Again, if I can find some wording to exempt individuals from the distribution requirement who would otherwise be put at clear risk to their human rights by state or corporate actors, then I'll add such wording.
  - pabs3 3y ago
    That doesn't address the problem with the concept.
    - andybak 3y ago
      No but your comment didn't mention that the topic had been acknowledged - so it adds useful context that was missing.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  This license seems to specifically take aim at RHEL's new source distribution policy. Are we as a community okay with allowing this to happen, because Red Hat is adhering to the letter of the GPL and the FSD/OSD/DFSG? Are those definitions unassailable truisms that are not up for debate? Are the authors arguments in favor of his own license not worth rebutting directly on the merits?
osigurdson 3y ago
I think this is meant to be the IBM / RHEL antidote licence in spirit. Makes sense. However, it isn't clear what should / would happen if the website you host your code on disappears. Would tricksters at IBM simply claim that their website which hosts the code has been undergoing maintenance for a year? At the other end of the spectrum, would litigious slime sue a maintainer if github is down for 5 minutes? "Publicly available" probably needs more rigorous legal definition.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> I think this is meant to be the IBM / RHEL antidote licence in spirit. Makes sense. You mean RH only releasing source to paying customers who have agreed though other arrangements not to share it? That's a GPL violation waiting for a court case.
frithsun 3y ago
Copyleft is a noble but failed endeavor. None of this legal voodoo changes the facts on the ground with the big tech oligopoly's control of the keystone infrastructure.
2h 3y ago
OSL already covers network use https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License
cornstalks 3y ago
> ## Have you any legal background, are your changes sound? > No I do not, and I have no idea. > I would greatly prefer to have a legal professional draft these changes. In lieu of that, I have tried to approach this by combining existing professionally drafted texts, and minimised adding my own wording. It’s an interesting idea for a license but no one should use this until it’s been reviewed by a competent lawyer.
Jiro 3y ago
This is a crayon license. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2011-December/017416.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...
phkahler 3y ago
Don't make any more open source or Free Software licenses. All the bases are covered and any code under yet another license just raises questions and prevent sharing between projects.
garbagecoder 3y ago
I am a non-practicing lawyer who has moved on to other things and even still, I would never draft a software license because it wasn't remotely my field. Either you need someone who can take the time to learn all of the ins and outs and knows how to apply it, including the international ones, or you can find someone who knows that stuff by heart.

49 points by pabs3 3y ago

We definitely need something like this. Not sure if this is it, as I, like the author, am not a lawyer. I'd need technology lawyers to analyze it for me. So although it doesn't add anything substantive to the HN discussion, I'd like to voice my approval for any efforts made towards a strong license in this spirit.

ReactiveJelly 3y ago

Interesting. The "why" section answered my questions - it appears to be an even stronger copyleft than the agpl

prepend 3y ago
I don’t think so. It seems like the agpl covers everything this does as I don’t think agpl cares about interactive vs non-interactive. That being said, I hope people choose to use this new license.
- tzs 3y ago
  The difference between GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is: 1. The name. 2. Section 13's title is changed from "Use with the GNU Affero General Public License" to "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License" and this is inserted before its first paragraph: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph. 3. Some more is added about how the two licenses work with each other. The whole point of AGPL is to deal with users interactive with the program (but only remotely over computer networks...if they are interacting remotely with it but not via a computer network or if they are interacting locally then AGPL is effectively GPL).
  - whartung 3y ago
    Consider this example: You download a FOPL version of something like cron. You make some changes to this code and run it on your internal servers to schedule some business process. Even though this software, not even the server, even catches a whiff of the internet, since the software has been “Deployed” for a commercial use case, the company is obliged to make the changes to the code publicly available. Simply, this license expands the distribution concept to commercial use, whether anyone else ever encounters it or not.
RobotToaster 3y ago
Seems like a weird mix of A and L GPL? "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software." Seems to imply you can use a library distributed under this licence and not release the entire program source?
- phkahler 3y ago
  Looks like a big gaping hole of ambiguity to me. A vague attempt at license compatibility. You don't get to impose terms on code under another license, and WTF does "the requirements of this license are fulfilled" without saying the result must be covered by this license? It's nonsense. There is no room here for "you know what I mean" because at best I think I know what they wish could be, but even if I'm right the details are absent.
josephcsible 3y ago
> an even stronger copyleft than the agpl Which is a red flag. The AGPL was basically designed to be the strongest possible copyleft FOSS license. When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source (e.g., the SSPL), and that's exactly what ended up happening here.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > When people try to make even stronger ones, they usually end up making something that's neither free nor open source "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" The FSF's stewardship of copyleft has led us to the current status quo, where the GPLv2 is still incredibly common compared to v3, the AGPL is considered niche, and it seems most developers these days prefer permissive licenses anyway. These kinds of new licenses are exactly the breath of fresh air we need. If the existing free software/open source dogma says they're bad, maybe it's the dogma that's wrong.

pabs3 3y ago

I note that this definitely wouldn't comply with the FSD/OSD/DFSG, because it means you are forcing people to communicate source to people they aren't communicating with, for whatever reason; such as because they are a dissident, or on a desert island, or in a domestic violence situation, or in a warzone etc. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

andybak 3y ago
From the README: ## What about the Debian "Political Dissident" test? See the above. Pretty much the same thing. Again, if I can find some wording to exempt individuals from the distribution requirement who would otherwise be put at clear risk to their human rights by state or corporate actors, then I'll add such wording.
- pabs3 3y ago
  That doesn't address the problem with the concept.
  - andybak 3y ago
    No but your comment didn't mention that the topic had been acknowledged - so it adds useful context that was missing.
LexiMax 3y ago
This license seems to specifically take aim at RHEL's new source distribution policy. Are we as a community okay with allowing this to happen, because Red Hat is adhering to the letter of the GPL and the FSD/OSD/DFSG? Are those definitions unassailable truisms that are not up for debate? Are the authors arguments in favor of his own license not worth rebutting directly on the merits?

osigurdson 3y ago

I think this is meant to be the IBM / RHEL antidote licence in spirit. Makes sense. However, it isn't clear what should / would happen if the website you host your code on disappears. Would tricksters at IBM simply claim that their website which hosts the code has been undergoing maintenance for a year? At the other end of the spectrum, would litigious slime sue a maintainer if github is down for 5 minutes? "Publicly available" probably needs more rigorous legal definition.

phkahler 3y ago
>> I think this is meant to be the IBM / RHEL antidote licence in spirit. Makes sense. You mean RH only releasing source to paying customers who have agreed though other arrangements not to share it? That's a GPL violation waiting for a court case.

frithsun 3y ago

Copyleft is a noble but failed endeavor. None of this legal voodoo changes the facts on the ground with the big tech oligopoly's control of the keystone infrastructure.

2h 3y ago

OSL already covers network use https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License

cornstalks 3y ago

> ## Have you any legal background, are your changes sound? > No I do not, and I have no idea. > I would greatly prefer to have a legal professional draft these changes. In lieu of that, I have tried to approach this by combining existing professionally drafted texts, and minimised adding my own wording. It’s an interesting idea for a license but no one should use this until it’s been reviewed by a competent lawyer.

Jiro 3y ago

This is a crayon license. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2011-December/017416.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

phkahler 3y ago

Don't make any more open source or Free Software licenses. All the bases are covered and any code under yet another license just raises questions and prevent sharing between projects.

garbagecoder 3y ago

I am a non-practicing lawyer who has moved on to other things and even still, I would never draft a software license because it wasn't remotely my field. Either you need someone who can take the time to learn all of the ins and outs and knows how to apply it, including the international ones, or you can find someone who knows that stuff by heart.