https://github.com/pjakma/fopl Skip to content Toggle navigation Sign up * Product + Actions Automate any workflow + Packages Host and manage packages + Security Find and fix vulnerabilities + Codespaces Instant dev environments + Copilot Write better code with AI + Code review Manage code changes + Issues Plan and track work + Discussions Collaborate outside of code Explore + All features + Documentation + GitHub Skills + Blog * Solutions For + Enterprise + Teams + Startups + Education By Solution + CI/CD & Automation + DevOps + DevSecOps Case Studies + Customer Stories + Resources * Open Source + GitHub Sponsors Fund open source developers + The ReadME Project GitHub community articles Repositories + Topics + Trending + Collections * Pricing [ ] * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | * No suggested jump to results * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | * # In this user All GitHub | Jump to | * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | Sign in Sign up You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. {{ message }} pjakma / fopl Public * Notifications * Fork 0 * Star 17 Fully Open Public Licence 17 stars 0 forks Star Notifications * Code * Issues 0 * Pull requests 0 * Actions * Projects 0 * Security * Insights More * Code * Issues * Pull requests * Actions * Projects * Security * Insights pjakma/fopl This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository. master Switch branches/tags [ ] Branches Tags Could not load branches Nothing to show {{ refName }} default View all branches Could not load tags Nothing to show {{ refName }} default View all tags Name already in use A tag already exists with the provided branch name. Many Git commands accept both tag and branch names, so creating this branch may cause unexpected behavior. Are you sure you want to create this branch? Cancel Create 1 branch 0 tags Code * Local * Codespaces * Clone HTTPS GitHub CLI [https://github.com/p] Use Git or checkout with SVN using the web URL. [gh repo clone pjakma] Work fast with our official CLI. Learn more about the CLI. * Open with GitHub Desktop * Download ZIP Sign In Required Please sign in to use Codespaces. Launching GitHub Desktop If nothing happens, download GitHub Desktop and try again. Launching GitHub Desktop If nothing happens, download GitHub Desktop and try again. Launching Xcode If nothing happens, download Xcode and try again. Launching Visual Studio Code Your codespace will open once ready. There was a problem preparing your codespace, please try again. Latest commit @pjakma pjakma Merge pull request #1 from infrastation/master ... b0654c7 Jun 8, 2021 Merge pull request #1 from infrastation/master Fixup some grammar in README. b0654c7 Git stats * 9 commits Files Permalink Failed to load latest commit information. Type Name Latest commit message Commit time .gitattributes Remove version from checked in version, add ident January 13, 2019 18:04 README Fixup some grammar in README. June 8, 2021 19:33 fopl.txt Remove the line on costs paid by losing party. January 13, 2019 19:34 versions.txt Add versions.txt file to map versions to git commit Ids. January 13, 2019 18:09 View code README # Fully Open Public Licence This a licence, based on the CDDL-1.0, with modifications inspired by the Sybase/Watcom licence (which looks also to be MPL derived/inspired, as the CDDL was). It differs from the CDDL by: - Referring to 'work' as the unit of coverage, rather than 'file', so as to be more like the GPL. - Using the concepts and wording from the Sybase/Watcom licence, to require that source code be made publicly available not just in the case of distribution, but also where a work is Deployed. The SyBase/Watcom licence: https://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 The CDDL v1.0 licence: https://opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.txt ## Wny create a new licence? In this day and age, where there are a plethora of freely available sites to distribute Free Software from, there is no good reason why the beneficiaries of Free Software should not be obliged to publish their changes to Free Software they make use of and benefit from. Commercial, corporate beneficiaries particularly. The GPL did not anticipate the large "cloud" technology companies, and their operating model. Where much use is made of Free Software internally, but where the companies concerned largely do not distribute software - and so the distribution obligation of the GPL never comes into play. Some of these large technology companies are good about contributing back their change. However, others are less so, and may even view keeping their improvements private a competitive advantage. Additionally, and more parasitically, there are corporations that specialise in abusing the Free Software made available by others. They offer improvements to copyleft (inc. GPL) licensed Free Software to customers, including source code. They will claim to have honoured their GPL obligations. However, they additionally bind customers with side-contracts, with penalty clauses should their customer ever actually exercise their GPL rights to distribute the sources, e.g. by terminating support and further access. The Fully Open Public Licence requires those technology companies, who may improve the Free Software they use but never distribute, to make such improvements available. Which will ultimately benefit those technology companies, by increasing the rate at which such Free Software can improve. The Fully Open Public Licence also explictly disallows the abuse of copyleft Free Software through restrictive side contracts. Such parasitic abusers will not benefit, by design. ## So why not the Affero GPL (AGPL)? The Affero GPL is written with interactive network applications in mind, e.g., web applications. Its distribution obligations extend only to those who can actually interact with the covered software. Its unclear to me how this applies to non-interactive software, if at all. It seems much simpler just to make it an unconditional requirement to publish the changes to software in use. ## Is this a Free Software licence? To my mind, yes. It's a strong copyleft licence, made by combining two OSI approved licences (the CDDL and the Watcom), deriving from the Mozilla Public Licence (MPL). The FSF considers the CDDL to be a Free Software licence, but do not approve it because of incompatibility with the GPL. However the FSF do /not/ consider the Sybase/Watcom licence to be Free Software, because of the requirement to publish the source code to Deployed modifications. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom ## What about the Debian "Desert Island" test? The licence at present might fail the Desert Island test. However, someone on a desert island is unlikely to have reason to worry about being sued for licence infringement. I would like to add wording to permit the public distribution requirement to be discharged by distributing to the widest audience physically possible, to fix this, in a future version. ## 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. ## Why base this off the CDDL? I like the GPL. I'd have liked to start with the GPL. However, in my limited experience, I've noticed that solicitors/lawyers don't seem very keen on the drafting of the GPL. The MPL/CDDL style wording seems to be held in higher regard by legal professionals. It seems better defined, less reliant on implicit legal concepts, and more understandable to me than the GPLv3. Also, I prefer the CDDLs' wording on patent rights and termination in the event of a patent suit. The GPLv3 is as clear as mud, at least to my non-legal mind, on patent rights and patent non-aggression. ## 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. If you do have legal training and could help or have suggestions, please do get in touch. ## Who are you? Paul Jakma, paul@jakma.org About Fully Open Public Licence Resources Readme Stars 17 stars Watchers 1 watching Forks 0 forks Report repository Releases No releases published Packages 0 No packages published Contributors 2 * @pjakma pjakma Paul Jakma * @infrastation infrastation Denis Ovsienko Footer (c) 2023 GitHub, Inc. Footer navigation * Terms * Privacy * Security * Status * Docs * Contact GitHub * Pricing * API * Training * Blog * About You can't perform that action at this time.