[HN Gopher] Fully Open Public Licence
___________________________________________________________________
Fully Open Public Licence
Author : pabs3
Score : 44 points
Date : 2023-06-24 11:05 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| cornstalks wrote:
| > _## 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.
| phkahler wrote:
| 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.
| reaperman wrote:
| 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.
| Jiro wrote:
| This is a crayon license.
| https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| Interesting. The "why" section answered my questions - it appears
| to be an even stronger copyleft than the agpl
| prepend wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| frithsun wrote:
| 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.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| 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.
| 2h wrote:
| OSL already covers network use
|
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License
| pabs3 wrote:
| 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://opensource.org/osd
| https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
| https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest
| https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest
| https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
| LexiMax wrote:
| 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?
| andybak wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That doesn't address the problem with the concept.
| andybak wrote:
| No but your comment didn't mention that the topic had been
| acknowledged - so it adds useful context that was missing.
| osigurdson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >> 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-24 23:02 UTC)