Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): Congratulations on coming up with a novel licensing concept. Pretty wild, but definitely novel. That is a rare accomplishment. > # -- (C) > # Released under the "Any Free License 2015-11-05", whose terms > # are the following: > # This code is released under any of the free software licenses listed on > # https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > # which for archival purposes is > # > https://web.archive.org/web/20151105070140/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html I note without special objection that this means the licence terms are indeterminate, or, to put it a different way. > You may notice that this license has a convenient upgrade procedure. ;-> (Actually, you probably mean, more specifically, that licensee may select among any of the licences that _were_ on the FSF list as of the date of the cited archive.org archive link. But your draft text is just a bit unclear on that.) > I suggest rolling releases of the license over time, updating to the > latest link available from: > > https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Whereas _this_ version of the suggestion definitely expands to indeterminate licensing terms. > If the OSI is not comfortable trusting the FSF license list at a > particular date, one possible procedure in the rolling release system is > that periodically, the OSI can review the FSF list, and make new > releases based on verified and approved copies of the FSF license list. Yes, quite. I'll return to that point in a moment. I don't speak for OSI, but suspect no one here would question FSF's commitment to free software or would have more than _some_ worries about its ability to assess licences (examples to follow, below), but OSI would be remiss in just outsourcing OSI Certified assessments to FSF or anyone else. > I would like to submit this license for consideration and inclusion on > the OSI license review list, but am seeking feedback first. OK, first question, why bother? Cui bono? Your meta-licence offers a choice among licences that are clearly (par excellence) free-software ones, and also are either explicitly OSI Certified or most probably would pass certification if submitted (e.g., GNU All-Permissive License). But I spot several odd entries on a quick review: o 'public domain', is problematic is part for reasons FSF cites and also for reasons OSI has FAQed. And it's not a licence. o Unlicence: incompetently drafted and doesn't have the intended effect; see below. o WTFL: incompetently drafted and doesn't have the intended effect; see below. o Informal license: This is a vague entry about a concept, and not a licence at all. CC0 is _likely_ to pass certification if it were re-submitted (having been withdrawn by submitter during prior consideration that raised concerns over its patent-grant-explicitly-not-implied language. My opinion, anyway; views may differ. My prior comments about Unlicense: Its first sentence professes to put the covered work into the public domain. However, then the second sentence professes to grant reserved rights under copyright law. However, who is granting those rights, the erstwhile copyright holder who, one sentence earlier, professed to destroy his or her own title? By contrast, CC0 states explicitly that the current copyright holder is attempting (I paraphrase) to the extent permitted by local law to disavow in perpetuity and on behalf of all successors all reserved rights, and _if that is locally unsuccessful_ grants a permissive licence under his/her powers as copyright owner. I realise there are a whole lot of software engineers out there who'd like to handwave copyright law out of their lives (including you), but it'd be really nice if they'd occasionally bother to consult suitable legal help before shooting themselves and others in the foot. [...] Paragraph (and sentence) #1 professes to put the covered work into the public domain. As mentioned, paragraph 2 professes to be a grant of rights normally reserved by default to a copyright owner, which makes no sense given that the preceding sentence professed to eradicate the work's quality of being ownable. _However_ (upon reflection), in itself that would be harmless if redundant and pointless: One can interpret paragraph 2 as an elaboration of the consequences of the first paragraph. Paragraph 3 is mostly further explanation of the concept of public domain, and therefore harmless if not useful. Its middle sentence elaborates that the erstwhile author aims to bind heirs and successors, too (which is a logical inclusion, irrespective of whether it works). Paragraph 4, though, is the one that would be amusing if it weren't tragically broken: It's the warranty disclaimer. People accepting the covered work are obliged to accept the conditio
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Rick Moen writes: > Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): > > Congratulations on coming up with a novel licensing concept. > Pretty wild, but definitely novel. That is a rare accomplishment. Thanks! > CC0 is _likely_ to pass certification if it were re-submitted (having > been withdrawn by submitter <> ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > but OSI would be > remiss in just outsourcing OSI Certified assessments to FSF or anyone > else. > I agree with this objection. Perhaps changing the license list from the licenses on the FSF page to the list of OSI-approved licenses would be a suitable way to address it. This, of course, limits the list and would appear to exclude the public domain and similar. I'm not sure if that really matters, since I don't understand what the real point of this license is. -- Ben Cotton ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Although not directly related, I started porting licenses to a machine readable format in git repo at https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses Eventually I'd like to even tag "releases", which makes stuff like pointing to licenses approved at X date more interesting. (Patches, bugs, ideas welcome) Paul On Nov 13, 2015 3:31 PM, "Christopher Allan Webber" wrote: > Feeling reminiscent of the good old days, when the threads of identi.ca > flowed freely with obscure licensing periphery, I have decided to try > my hand at crafting where so many have dared to try (and fail) in > penning an Open Source license worthy of the OSI license list. > > I decided to author the most open license of all time, for those who > just can't decide over license minutiae. Here it is. Simply copy this > into your programming headers and you are on the path to maximal > freedom. > > # -- (C) > # Released under the "Any Free License 2015-11-05", whose terms > # are the following: > # This code is released under any of the free software licenses listed > on > # https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > # which for archival purposes is > # > https://web.archive.org/web/20151105070140/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > You may notice that this license has a convenient upgrade procedure. > I suggest rolling releases of the license over time, updating to the > latest link available from: > > > https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > If the OSI is not comfortable trusting the FSF license list at a > particular date, one possible procedure in the rolling release system is > that periodically, the OSI can review the FSF list, and make new > releases based on verified and approved copies of the FSF license list. > > I would like to submit this license for consideration and inclusion on > the OSI license review list, but am seeking feedback first. At current > writing, approximately zero users include this text in their > headers--however, at best estimation, this license has thousands if not > tens or hundreds of thousands of users, and I believe that its mechanism > provides novel benefits, and formalizing it as an acceptable choice for > those who wish to promulgate Open Source principles will improve the > currently unclear situation. Where others promise some freedoms, Any > Free License delivers all possible freedoms, to the maximum extent > permitted by law or currently recognized free licensing procedures. > > Any and all commentary to be derived from this email is left as an > exercise to the reader. But I assure you, this is Not A Troll. > > - Christopher Allan Webber > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): > Rick Moen writes: > > CC0 is _likely_ to pass certification if it were re-submitted > > (having been withdrawn by submitter > > <> Well, read it. Especially read the fallback permissive licence, that being the main point. It's really pretty much a classic of that form, _and_ (unlike WTFPL and Unlicense) extremely well drafted. Commenters on license-review disliked CC0 going out of its way to state that there are _no_ patent rights conveyed, instead of the approach taken by most permissive licences of eschewing comment on that subject, but that misfeature doesn't make it proprietary. -- Rick Moen "The Internet sees your competence and wisdom as damage, r...@linuxmafia.comand will route around it." -- Anil Dash McQ! (4x80) http://twitter.com/anildash/status/2897466042 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
On 09/11/2015 9:17 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: Feeling reminiscent of the good old days, when the threads of identi.ca flowed freely with obscure licensing periphery, I have decided to try my hand at crafting where so many have dared to try (and fail) in penning an Open Source license worthy of the OSI license list. I decided to author the most open license of all time, for those who just can't decide over license minutiae. Here it is. Simply copy this into your programming headers and you are on the path to maximal freedom. I have a sort of meta-problem with this idea. The OSI approves licenses. IANAL, but to me this is not a license. It does not by itself grant any rights. Therefore I wonder if it is even valid for consideration? -- Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: [...] > I decided to author the most open license of all time, for those who > just can't decide over license minutiae. Here it is. Simply copy this > into your programming headers and you are on the path to maximal > freedom. > > # -- (C) > # Released under the "Any Free License 2015-11-05", whose terms > # are the following: > # This code is released under any of the free software licenses listed on > # https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > # which for archival purposes is > # > https://web.archive.org/web/20151105070140/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Chris: This is not a license proper, but a choice among many licenses. Therefore there is no need for any "approval". Approval would apply to each individual license and not to all conjunctive or disjunctive license combinations or permutations, even for a something allowing anything. As an aside, this notice of yours is unlikely as open and "free" of constraints as it may look on the surface. What does any mean? Can it be a subset of the choices? What if the terms conflicts? Must I pick one license among them all? Must I or can I or not pass this choice downstream? To be clear you would need to address all these (and likely many other) related issues So this may not be such a good idea after all. -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Mike Milinkovich writes: > I have a sort of meta-problem with this idea. The OSI approves licenses. > IANAL, but to me this is not a license. It does not by itself grant any > rights. Therefore I wonder if it is even valid for consideration? Well, you aren't the only one to have a meta-problem with it; I do too, and yet I'm the submitter. "Is it a license" is one of the questions I mused over, a kind of copyright existentialism (what, like, is a license anyway man?). Is it valid? For consideration, maybe or maybe not. It's probably valid legally; the source of inspiration for this was considering the "compatible license" provisions of the CC licenses: BY-SA Compatible License means a license listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses, approved by Creative Commons as essentially the equivalent of this Public License. I don't mean to knock this; I think this provision has done great good (as some here know, I was a long-time advocate of CC BY-SA and GPL compatibility, and I'm relieved to see one-way compatibility achieved at last). But it's a good source of musing. I suppose, in that last sentence, I have revealed my hand. It is only the worst kind of magician that reveals the method behind their act, but that is but one brief hobby of mine from middle school I am afraid I had to give up: the basis of the craft on not revealing source came into contradiction of later philosophical beliefs of mine. Comedy, it seems, is another middle school craft that I probably should have laid to rest. It is only the worst kind of comedian that, standing eel-faced before their audience, waits for their audience to get their jokes, and then worrying that they don't, proceeds to explain them. Which is all to say, I am neither a good magician, nor a good comedian. Despite this, there are at least 20 jokes hidden in my original email. For those who enjoy scavenger hunts over spectral eggs, happy hunting. Nonetheless, it was not all a joke. In my original email, I said This Is Not A Troll. I figured this more than anything would tip my hand, but not all are familiar with that phrase, and I can't speak for its original author, but perhaps I should have said: "This Is Not Merely A Troll". I think, as legalcode, it's probably sufficient, and if you're interested in using it, go for it! It's more or less the un-unlicense. More seriously, I hoped to reveal some serious points for consideration. Some, in replying to this thread, have already raised some of the issues I hoped to in my email. Though I've spoiled the acts, I won't spoil the scavenger hunt, except for one... Rob Myers (there are co-conspirators to my original post who will remain anonymous, but Rob was not one of them, so no charges should be placed against him) provided an excellent follow-up: "v2 should also include nonfree licenses." https://twitter.com/robmyers/status/665306134043996160 I'd argue that v1 already does. That's one egg revealed: the Any Free License claims to provide maximum freedoms by encompassing all freedoms of all other licenses. In consideration of Rob's suggestion to upgrade (hereby marked WONTFIX NOTABUG WORKSFORME), I'd pause for consideration on what constitutes maximum freedom. In covering "any" free license, in so few words, Any Free License covers so many words of legal language. Well, many submissions in pursuit of "maximum freedom" for our licensing consideration have taken the opposite approach, reducing their verbiage in pursuit of the fewest terms. It's a worthwhile goal to have these licenses, but it's interesting when one of the arguments for having the fewest terms is in compatibility with a much more proprietary set of legalcode. In light of Rob's suggestion (and my implication that it's already included), I encourage reflection on whether this is really "maximum freedom" at all. If that's not enough to satisfy your omelet, I assure you there are other eggs to crack in the original post. Well, by the end of this, I have revealed that I am the worst type of comedian in yet another way, by laughing at my own joke. Ha ha, only serious, I should say. One more jape: Rick Moen writes: > Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): > >> Rick Moen writes: > >> > CC0 is _likely_ to pass certification if it were re-submitted >> > (having been withdrawn by submitter >> >> <> > > Well, read it. Especially read the fallback permissive licence, > that being the main point. It's really pretty much a classic of that > form, _and_ (unlike WTFPL and Unlicense) extremely well drafted. > > Commenters on license-review disliked CC0 going out of its way to state > that there are _no_ patent rights conveyed, instead of the approach > taken by most permissive licences of eschewing comment on that subject, > but that misfeature doesn't make it proprietary. I didn't return to read that thread, because I'm afraid I'm all too familiar with it. Which is to say: check the headers on
Re: [License-discuss] Any Free License, an open source license
Quoting Christopher Allan Webber (cweb...@dustycloud.org): > Well, you aren't the only one to have a meta-problem with it; I do too, > and yet I'm the submitter. "Is it a license" is one of the questions I > mused over, a kind of copyright existentialism (what, like, is a license > anyway man?). Is it valid? I think it's clearly valid in the sense of conveying bundles of rights that otherwise would have been reserved to copyright owners -- indeed, does so in the recipient's choice of (IIRC) 94 different ways. In a strictly mechanistic sense, it _licenses_ (verb); one might judge that anything that licenses is a licence. However, there's really nothing to approve in its body text. What OSI would need to examine and certify would be the licences it references. > For consideration, maybe or maybe not. You're joking, I hope. If so, well done. Such an arid sense of humour is rare outside us of the Scandinavian cultures. > It's probably valid legally; the source of inspiration for this was > considering the "compatible license" provisions of the CC licenses: Another way to think of it is that you've taken dual-licensing to just about the furthest possible extreme. BTW, why no comment on my suggestion that a metalicence offering a choice of the ~70 OSI Certified licences would be slightly more reasonable when talking to OSI than is one hinging on FSF's smorgasbord of 90 free software licences + two FSF-approved failures + two FSF-screwed-up-and-approved non-licences? Not that you owe one, but I'm curious. [Rob Myers:] > "v2 should also include nonfree licenses." > https://twitter.com/robmyers/status/665306134043996160 As long as we're musing, don't _all_ open source (free-software) licences already include a limited aleph-nought infinity of implicit proprietary (non-free) licences? E.g., your right to use the bsdutils for any purpose provided you obey the advertising clause, agree there's no warranties, and preserve the copyright notice and licence terms, implies also permission subject to those terms plus the requirement that you pay Rick Moen US $100 and use the code only to manage tuba quartets. However, and hoping not to be rude about this, a thing being true doesn't necessarily make it interesting. Speaking for myself, I can't justify much time spent on gedankenexperiments without at some insight beyond 'permissive licensing implictly includes non-permissive permissions'). [CC0:] > I didn't return to read that thread, because I'm afraid I'm all too > familiar with it. Which is to say: check the headers on who submitted > and withdrew. I won't... while I'm still interested in a revision to > CC0 that could be accepted on this list, and which resolves what I do > think are valid concerns raised, I lost a good month of my life > agonizing over it the last time. Well, I sympathise. And you can perhaps empathise with people grown wary of the recent years' flurry of strange permissive licences, who begrudge the time OSI is continually asked to spend examining them without real benefit. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
