For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Julian Daich]

Hi,

I am looking for volunteers to review a free license very close to the
GPL v.3  but with some key differences

It is intended to be used for licensing physical things and other
aspects of technology in general in addition to copyright as methods,
formulations. etc

The license is copyleft and patent left. Patents are not necessary to
be used with it, however the license works better combined with
patents for works not purely covered by copyright.

Trademarks are handled very differently than the GPL.

The first work to be released under this license is a therapeutic
device, however it was designed to be used to release any work that
can derive in a copyright, patent claim or trademark. The last version
of the license can be found here
https://www.lindsinnersole.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LINDS-General-Public-Agreement-V1.4.rtf
We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces
Technology to refer to works released under this license.

The purpose of the review is to have feedback and to identify possible
problems, bugs and improvements. Everyone interested in the task can
contact me in private. Having previously read and understood the GPL
is very preferable for the task.

Best,

Julian



Best.

Julian

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

Dear Julian,

Have you looked at the CERN Open Hardware License 2.0?

https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/Documents/CERN-OHL-version-2

It has a strongly-reciprocal variant which is like the GPL but for 
physical objects:

https://ohwr.org/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt

Is there something you're trying to do with this LINDS license that the 
CERN OHL 2.0 does not?

On 3/6/22 10:40, Julian Daich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am looking for volunteers to review a free license very close to the
> GPL v.3  but with some key differences
> 
> It is intended to be used for licensing physical things and other
> aspects of technology in general in addition to copyright as methods,
> formulations. etc
> 
> The license is copyleft and patent left. Patents are not necessary to
> be used with it, however the license works better combined with
> patents for works not purely covered by copyright.
> 
> Trademarks are handled very differently than the GPL.
> 
> The first work to be released under this license is a therapeutic
> device, however it was designed to be used to release any work that
> can derive in a copyright, patent claim or trademark. The last version
> of the license can be found here
> https://www.lindsinnersole.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LINDS-General-Public-Agreement-V1.4.rtf
> We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces
> Technology to refer to works released under this license.
> 
> The purpose of the review is to have feedback and to identify possible
> problems, bugs and improvements. Everyone interested in the task can
> contact me in private. Having previously read and understood the GPL
> is very preferable for the task.
> 
> Best,
> Julian

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Valentino Giudice]

This is the most advisable path for writing a new free license:
- DON'T. Actually, I don't. Really really don't. We have enough
license proliferation already.

If you decide that there is an absolute need for a new free license,
which outweighs the cost (which is unlikely), then:
- Make sure you have a good understanding of copyright and patent law,
and that which you are trying to achieve is legally possible, and that
you fully understand what the side effects are.
- Make sure you have read and understood, in full (not summaries), all
existing free licenses (well, at least the known ones).
- Make sure you fully understand what "free software" means to
adjacent communities (the GNU/FSF and Debian, the latter being a bit
stricter). Also make sure you fully understand what "open source"
means (to OSI and to Debian, which uses the two terms as synonyms):
this is to avoid splitting the free software community, since
disagreements about what licenses are "FLOSS" currently only lie on
the very boundary of software freedom, and belong to licenses which
are rarely used.
- Make sure that you truly know what you are trying to achieve would
be uncontroversially considered "free" and that there is no existing
free license that can achieve that already.
- Wonder whether the thing you are trying to achieve is one we need at all.
- Write the license **with legal council**. Don't assume you can write
a good license without the help from lawyers: you probably can't even
if you are a lawyer yourself.
- Consult with the community, get feedback and truly learn from it,
then repeat until you have a stable text. Make sure that the literal
text of the license, its intention and how a developer and a court of
law are likely to parse it align.

Anything else would lead to a license which is useless.

> We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces
> Technology to refer to works released under this license.

That's a very weird definition.
It's very weird to define a class of *things* by the fact that they
are all released under one specific license.
There is a misconception (which I don't know where it comes from) that
free software is software under the GPL.
This is false: free software can be released under any free software
licenses, the GPL is just one of them. The vast majority of free
software licenses are non-copyleft, too.
I'm not saying you have this misconception, to be clear. But why would
you define "Free Acces Technology" not based on abstract ideas and
principles, but rather based on one very specific license?

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Jean Louis]

I fully support and agree to advices given by Valentino.

* Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice96@gmail.com> [2022-03-06 18:35]:
> This is the most advisable path for writing a new free license:
> - DON'T. Actually, I don't. Really really don't. We have enough
> license proliferation already.
> 
> If you decide that there is an absolute need for a new free license,
> which outweighs the cost (which is unlikely), then:
> - Make sure you have a good understanding of copyright and patent law,
> and that which you are trying to achieve is legally possible, and that
> you fully understand what the side effects are.
> - Make sure you have read and understood, in full (not summaries), all
> existing free licenses (well, at least the known ones).
> - Make sure you fully understand what "free software" means to
> adjacent communities (the GNU/FSF and Debian, the latter being a bit
> stricter). Also make sure you fully understand what "open source"
> means (to OSI and to Debian, which uses the two terms as synonyms):
> this is to avoid splitting the free software community, since
> disagreements about what licenses are "FLOSS" currently only lie on
> the very boundary of software freedom, and belong to licenses which
> are rarely used.
> - Make sure that you truly know what you are trying to achieve would
> be uncontroversially considered "free" and that there is no existing
> free license that can achieve that already.
> - Wonder whether the thing you are trying to achieve is one we need at all.
> - Write the license **with legal council**. Don't assume you can write
> a good license without the help from lawyers: you probably can't even
> if you are a lawyer yourself.
> - Consult with the community, get feedback and truly learn from it,
> then repeat until you have a stable text. Make sure that the literal
> text of the license, its intention and how a developer and a court of
> law are likely to parse it align.
> 
> Anything else would lead to a license which is useless.
> 
> > We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces
> > Technology to refer to works released under this license.
> 
> That's a very weird definition.
> It's very weird to define a class of *things* by the fact that they
> are all released under one specific license.
> There is a misconception (which I don't know where it comes from) that
> free software is software under the GPL.
> This is false: free software can be released under any free software
> licenses, the GPL is just one of them. The vast majority of free
> software licenses are non-copyleft, too.
> I'm not saying you have this misconception, to be clear. But why would
> you define "Free Acces Technology" not based on abstract ideas and
> principles, but rather based on one very specific license?

Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

On 08/03/2022, Julian Daich <julian.daich@freecomputerlabs.org> wrote:
> El 6/3/22 a las 14:27, Pen-Yuan Hsing escribió:
>>
>> Dear Julian,
>>
>> Have you looked at the CERN Open Hardware License 2.0?
>>
>> https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/Documents/CERN-OHL-version-2
>>> It has a strongly-reciprocal variant which is like the GPL but for
>> physical objects:
>>
>> https://ohwr.org/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt
>>
>
> Hi Pen-Yuan,
>
> I read both licenses. They have very limited enforceability.
>
>> Is there something you're trying to do with this LINDS license that the
>> CERN OHL 2.0 does not?
>>
> Yes, better legal enforceability and the way in which trademarks are
> handled.
>
> You are welcome to read and compare.
>
> Best,
> Julian

Dear Julian,

What do you mean by "legal enforceability"? What makes a license more
or less enforceable? It would be important to define this clearly. And
can you explain why the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses are not enforceable
enough?

As for trademarks, careful and professional legal reading will be
needed, too. Depending on how you word a license, it might make the
license non-free. Can you explain in detail what your concerns about
trademarks are regarding existing licenses such as, but not limited
to, the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses?

Also, I strongly echo Valentino's response. License proliferation is a
big problem and one should avoid creating a new license as much as
possible, and to be honest because of my questions above, it is not
clear to me what your new license brings to the table.

This is not a malicious criticism, just trying to better understand
where you are coming from! I am also not a lawyer so might have missed
something critical in your new proposed license.

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Julian Daich]

El 6/3/22 a las 14:27, Pen-Yuan Hsing escribió:
> 
> Dear Julian,
> 
> Have you looked at the CERN Open Hardware License 2.0?
> 
> https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/Documents/CERN-OHL-version-2
>> It has a strongly-reciprocal variant which is like the GPL but for
> physical objects:
> 
> https://ohwr.org/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt
> 

Hi Pen-Yuan,

I read both licenses. They have very limited enforceability.

> Is there something you're trying to do with this LINDS license that the
> CERN OHL 2.0 does not?
> 

Yes, better legal enforceability and the way in which trademarks are
handled.

You are welcome to read and compare.

Best,

Julian

> On 3/6/22 10:40, Julian Daich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking for volunteers to review a free license very close to the
>> GPL v.3  but with some key differences
>>
>> It is intended to be used for licensing physical things and other
>> aspects of technology in general in addition to copyright as methods,
>> formulations. etc
>>
>> The license is copyleft and patent left. Patents are not necessary to
>> be used with it, however the license works better combined with
>> patents for works not purely covered by copyright.
>>
>> Trademarks are handled very differently than the GPL.
>>
>> The first work to be released under this license is a therapeutic
>> device, however it was designed to be used to release any work that
>> can derive in a copyright, patent claim or trademark. The last version
>> of the license can be found here
>> https://www.lindsinnersole.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LINDS-General-Public-Agreement-V1.4.rtf
>>
>> We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces
>> Technology to refer to works released under this license.
>>
>> The purpose of the review is to have feedback and to identify possible
>> problems, bugs and improvements. Everyone interested in the task can
>> contact me in private. Having previously read and understood the GPL
>> is very preferable for the task.
>>
>> Best,
>> Julian

-- 
Julian Daich

julian.daich@freecomputerlabs.org

FCL
www.freecomputerlabs.org

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Julian Daich]

El 6/3/22 a las 17:34, Valentino Giudice escribió:
> - Make sure you have a good understanding of copyright and patent law,
> and that which you are trying to achieve is legally possible, and that
> you fully understand what the side effects are.

Hi Valentino,

As I proposed to Pen-Yuan you are invited to read the license and opine
with the same impetus as you did with my mail,

Best,

Julian
-- 
Julian Daich

julian.daich@freecomputerlabs.org

FCL
www.freecomputerlabs.org

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: For reviewing a new free license. People who have read and understand the GPL

[Julian Daich]

El 8/3/22 a las 17:54, Pen-Yuan Hsing escribió:
> On 08/03/2022, Julian Daich <julian.daich@freecomputerlabs.org> wrote:
>> El 6/3/22 a las 14:27, Pen-Yuan Hsing escribió:
>>>
>>> Dear Julian,
>>>
>>> Have you looked at the CERN Open Hardware License 2.0?
>>>
>>> https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/Documents/CERN-OHL-version-2
>>>> It has a strongly-reciprocal variant which is like the GPL but for
>>> physical objects:
>>>
>>> https://ohwr.org/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt
>>>
>>
>> Hi Pen-Yuan,
>>
>> I read both licenses. They have very limited enforceability.
>>
>>> Is there something you're trying to do with this LINDS license that the
>>> CERN OHL 2.0 does not?
>>>
>> Yes, better legal enforceability and the way in which trademarks are
>> handled.
>>
>> You are welcome to read and compare.
>>
>> Best,
>> Julian
> 
> Dear Julian,
> 
> What do you mean by "legal enforceability"? What makes a license more
> or less enforceable? It would be important to define this clearly. And
> can you explain why the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses are not enforceable
> enough?
> 

Hi Pen-Yuan,

Legal enforceability is the capability of any licensor to bring to the
court to any licensee who will breach the license to correct the
licensee behavior or otherwise restrict access to the licensed work and/
or eventually pay for damages and legal costs.

> Can you explain in detail what your concerns about
> trademarks are regarding existing licenses such as, but not limited
> to, the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses?

There are many. I recall few. The holding of copyrights is no well
defined for contributors. The terms conditions do not request that the
documenting of changes will be done in a fashion that it produces a
copyright. It is not concise in how a patent claim from a contributor is
linked to a licensed work and does not differentiate properly between
patent claim owner, holder or person in control.

In the above I used the GPL definition of contributor and the WPO
definition of patent claim.

Best,

Julian
-- 
Julian Daich

julian.daich@freecomputerlabs.org

FCL
www.freecomputerlabs.org

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss