[PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches

[PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

Fontana,

Here is my first series of patches against the new copyleft-next.git
project [0]. These patches consists of a few cosmetic changes along
with the idea of embracing the usage of the Signed-off-by tag. I've
decided to use lkml given since there is no mailing list set up yet
and I could not think of a more public mailing list I could use.
Maybe we could just use it for now, what's a little more lkml spam ?

I've decided to Cc bkuhn, perhaps he doesn't want to be, but oh well,
he knows a lot on these matters.

[0] git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next.git

Luis R. Rodriguez (4):
  copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references
  copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next
  copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next
  copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

 ABOUT                          |   10 ++++-----
 CONTRIBUTING                   |   45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next |    6 +++---
 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
 rename COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next (99%)

-- 
1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241

[PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

This uses github, lets not confuse the focus for
development for now.
---
 CONTRIBUTING |   13 +------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index 1db3cd2..d06f5da 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -47,15 +47,4 @@ Public Source Locations
 =======================
 
 Gitorious (https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next) is now the centralized
-location of source for this project. It will be mirrored at a GitHub
-repo (currently https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next) for
-the time being, and perhaps indefinitely.
-
-
-Issue Tracking
-==============
-
-The issue tracker associated with
-https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next shall be kept open for the
-time being, but at some point it is likely to be disabled.
-
+location of source for this project.
-- 
1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241

[PATCH 2/4] copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

This reflects the present gitorious.org name and reflects
better with other foo-next git trees out there.
---
 ABOUT         |   10 +++++-----
 COPYLEFT.next |    6 +++---
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ABOUT b/ABOUT
index 0e8ce0b..791000f 100644
--- a/ABOUT
+++ b/ABOUT
@@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
-Copyleft.next
+copyleft-next
 =============
 
 "Exploring ideas for a modified copyleft license can't hurt."
     - Richard M. Stallman, July 2012
 
-Copyleft.next is an experimental "-ng"-type modification of the GNU
+copyleft-next is an experimental "-ng"-type modification of the GNU
 General Public License, version 3. (It is *not* a fork.)
 Contributions of patches, ideas, and criticism are welcome. The goal
 of this effort is to develop an improved strong copyleft free software
 license. Needless to say, no one should actually *use* a development
-version of Copyleft.next as an actual license. Anyone interested in
+version of copyleft-next as an actual license. Anyone interested in
 actually *using* a strong copyleft license for code will wish to use
 one or more of the following licenses: GNU GPLv2, GNU GPLv3, GNU
 AGPLv3, and/or later versions of those licenses. For more information,
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ with (e.g.) Red Hat, or any other corporate entity.** Contributors are
 expected to participate in their individual capacity.
 
 All communications with journalists shall be handled by the
-Copyleft.next Marketing Committee, which does not exist yet and
+copyleft-next Marketing Committee, which does not exist yet and
 probably won't exist for at least another year or three. For the
 avoidance of doubt, Simon Phipps is not considered a
 journalist.
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ existing (and future) versions of the GNU GPL, which addresses one of
 the FSF's concerns about modified versions of the GNU GPL.
 
 The meta-license from the FSF stated in its FAQ shall be the license
-of all versions of the Copyleft.next license text (to the extent that
+of all versions of the copyleft-next license text (to the extent that
 such versions retain any copyrightable material from versions of the
 GNU GPL in which the FSF has asserted copyright). Based on the FSF
 FAQ, that meta-license may be stated as follows:
diff --git a/COPYLEFT.next b/COPYLEFT.next
index a741985..1afa01e 100644
--- a/COPYLEFT.next
+++ b/COPYLEFT.next
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-                             Copyleft.next
+                             copyleft-next
 
   0. Definitions.
 
@@ -392,9 +392,9 @@ survive such relicensing.
   14. New Versions of this License.
 
   The initial License Steward is [?]. The License Steward may publish
-new versions of Copyleft.next.  Each version will be given a
+new versions of copyleft-next.  Each version will be given a
 distinguishing version number. You may distribute a Covered Work under
-the terms of the version of Copyleft.next under which the Program is
+the terms of the version of copyleft-next under which the Program is
 licensed, or under the terms of any subsequent version published by
 the License Steward.
 
-- 
1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241

[PATCH 3/4] copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

Also update the CONTRIBUTING to reflect the new file name
change.
---
 CONTRIBUTING                   |    2 +-
 COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next |    0
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
 rename COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next (100%)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index d06f5da..8f214b1 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 
 Contributions of any sort (text suggestions, ideas, feedback,
 criticism) from all interested individuals are welcome and encouraged.
-All original contributions to Copyleft.next are dedicated to the
+All original contributions to copyleft-next are dedicated to the
 public domain to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law,
 pursuant to CC0. See CC0 for further details.
 
diff --git a/COPYLEFT.next b/copyleft-next
similarity index 100%
rename from COPYLEFT.next
rename to copyleft-next
-- 
1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241

[PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface
project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely
used in public projects and we stand to gain to make
its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the
Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's.

[0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git

Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
---
 CONTRIBUTING |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index 8f214b1..966366c 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -5,6 +5,36 @@ All original contributions to copyleft-next are dedicated to the
 public domain to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law,
 pursuant to CC0. See CC0 for further details.
 
+Please either send me signed-off patches or a pull request with
+signed-off commits.  If you don't sign off on them, I will not accept
+them. This means adding a line that says "Signed-off-by: Name <email>"
+at the end of each commit, indicating that you wrote the code and have
+the right to pass it on as an open source patch.
+
+See: http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html
+
+Also, please write good git commit messages.  A good commit message
+looks like this:
+
+	Header line: explaining the commit in one line
+
+	Body of commit message is a few lines of text, explaining things
+	in more detail, possibly giving some background about the issue
+	being fixed, etc etc.
+
+	The body of the commit message can be several paragraphs, and
+	please do proper word-wrap and keep columns shorter than about
+	74 characters or so. That way "git log" will show things
+	nicely even when it's indented.
+
+	Reported-by: whoever-reported-it
+	Signed-off-by: Your Name <youremail@yourhost.com>
+
+where that header line really should be meaningful, and really should be
+just one line.  That header line is what is shown by tools like gitk and
+shortlog, and should summarize the change in one readable line of text,
+independently of the longer explanation.
+
 Contributions from individual free/libre/open source software project
 participants, regardless of their views on copyleft, and regardless of
 their opinions on existing licenses such as the GNU GPLv2 and its
-- 
1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241

Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Ted Ts'o]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 05:44:49PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
> 
> The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface
> project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely
> used in public projects and we stand to gain to make
> its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the
> Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's.
> 
> [0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list?  I've
checked the copyleft-next clause, and the anti-Tivoization clauses,
which was one of the primary reasons articulated by many kernel
developers --- including Linus Torvalds --- for not using GPLv3, is
still in the Copyleft-next license.

My understanding of Richard Fontana's past public positions was that
he was supportive of that part of the GPLv3 license, and so I had
assumed the Copyleft-next effort would be irrelevant as far as the
Linux Kernel was concerned.

Even if I am wrong about that (and I would be delighted if the answer
was that one of the Copyright-next's goals was to resolve this barrier
of the kernel moving off of GPLv2), it still would seem to me to be
out of scope of the LKML.

Regards,

							- Ted

Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 05:44:49PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
>>
>> The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface
>> project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely
>> used in public projects and we stand to gain to make
>> its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the
>> Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's.
>>
>> [0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
>
> I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list?

Simply because there is no public mailing list for it yet and given
the nature of the license I wanted to ensure changes get as much
public review as possible, and what better and more public place than
lkml ? What can I say -- I did have hope for it to be used on Linux
but more on that below.

> I've checked the copyleft-next clause, and the anti-Tivoization clauses,
> which was one of the primary reasons articulated by many kernel
> developers --- including Linus Torvalds --- for not using GPLv3, is
> still in the Copyleft-next license.
>
> My understanding of Richard Fontana's past public positions was that
> he was supportive of that part of the GPLv3 license, and so I had
> assumed the Copyleft-next effort would be irrelevant as far as the
> Linux Kernel was concerned.

Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test
it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be
supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I
have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider
copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with
regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical
issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is
bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being
explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization
clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be
addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views
copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm
hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community.

If one objective is not to remove Tivoization or address other kernel
developer's concerns with the GPLv3 then we can rest assured we Linux
kernel developers can simply disregard copyleft-next.

It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help
address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel
community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar
where we *do* address such things.

> Even if I am wrong about that (and I would be delighted if the answer
> was that one of the Copyright-next's goals was to resolve this barrier
> of the kernel moving off of GPLv2), it still would seem to me to be
> out of scope of the LKML.

Thanks, unfortunately no alternative list is yet created, so I'll
respin my patches given that they seem to need a rebase now, and also
try to remove Tivoization -- moving forwards at the very least we can
get addressed whether or not this license can eventually be useful for
Linux or not and if not I'll know not to care for it with hopes for
Linux.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Ted Ts'o]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30:59AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test
> it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be
> supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I
> have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider
> copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with
> regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical
> issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is
> bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being
> explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization
> clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be
> addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views
> copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm
> hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community.

Well, at the risk of starting a long flame war on licensing issues on
LKML, which I'm sure would not get us thanks from anyone, we do need
to acknowledge that there are people "in the community" who believe
very strongly in the anti-Tivoization clause.  Indeed, there are
others who are even more extreme, and would have preferred that the
restrictions embodied in the Affero General Public License would get
incorporated into the GPLv3.  Very fortunately (IMHO) this idea did
not get traction, but the point remains that there's a very wide
diversity of opinion "in the community" about what sort of
restrictions and how viral a Copyleft license "should" be.

> It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help
> address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel
> community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar
> where we *do* address such things.

Yes, but is it worth it?  The patent language could get a bit
stronger, and legal language would get a bit more clear; but the GPLv2
has the advantage that it's time tested and well understood.  A new
license would take a huge amount of work, and it's not clear the
benefits outweigh the costs.

And I'm not just talking about the work of revising the license,
getting lawyers to sign off on it, etc., but also the work of getting
all of the copyright holders (including the corporate ones) to sign
off on the license change.  Then there's also the license
incompatibility issue problem....  Bottom line is, even if the
Copyright Next license, or some fork of the Copyright Next License,
had the anti-Tivoization issue addressed to the kernel community's
satisfaction, is it worth the effort to move the Linux Kernel to a
newer license?  There are benefits, definitely; but there are also a
large set of costs.

Regards,

					- Ted

Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30:59AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test
>> it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be
>> supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I
>> have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider
>> copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with
>> regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical
>> issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is
>> bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being
>> explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization
>> clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be
>> addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views
>> copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm
>> hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community.
>
> Well, at the risk of starting a long flame war on licensing issues on
> LKML, which I'm sure would not get us thanks from anyone, we do need
> to acknowledge that there are people "in the community" who believe
> very strongly in the anti-Tivoization clause.

I'm glad you're acknowledging this, thanks.

> Indeed, there are others who are even more extreme, and would have preferred that the
> restrictions embodied in the Affero General Public License would get
> incorporated into the GPLv3.

Holy Google, I didn't know these actual contributors existed :)

> Very fortunately (IMHO) this idea did
> not get traction, but the point remains that there's a very wide
> diversity of opinion "in the community" about what sort of
> restrictions and how viral a Copyleft license "should" be.

Makes sense.

>> It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help
>> address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel
>> community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar
>> where we *do* address such things.
>
> Yes, but is it worth it?  The patent language could get a bit
> stronger, and legal language would get a bit more clear; but the GPLv2
> has the advantage that it's time tested and well understood.  A new
> license would take a huge amount of work, and it's not clear the
> benefits outweigh the costs.

Great points. There are a few boring non controversial updates like
requirements for redistribution using more reasonable modern
technologies that may be worth accepting as obvious. At the very least
these sort of things are with considering IMHO. Another worthy point
was the removal of the death penalty.

> And I'm not just talking about the work of revising the license,

Which is why this is a project -- so that those who are attorneys can
go off and play while we developers go off and do what we do better.

> getting lawyers to sign off on it, etc., but also the work of getting
> all of the copyright holders (including the corporate ones) to sign
> off on the license change.

Great point, if an explcit ACK is *not* required would it be worth it then?

But do we require an explicit ACK if the license is compatible and all
that is being done is updating the license to account for new
technologies, and a maybe the death penalty ? My understanding is that
we would require the explicit ACK *if* the clause on the file does not
have "or later" clause for the GPLv2.

We even have developers now who have died! If we are indeed required
to get explicit ACKs I agree its a complex requirement and an
unpractical thing to try to do then.

But -- I do hope there there may be some alternative option here...

> Then there's also the license
> incompatibility issue problem....  Bottom line is, even if the
> Copyright Next license, or some fork of the Copyright Next License,
> had the anti-Tivoization issue addressed to the kernel community's
> satisfaction, is it worth the effort to move the Linux Kernel to a
> newer license?  There are benefits, definitely; but there are also a
> large set of costs.

Its a great point but we also have to consider the other end of this:
if we do not ever update the license, does it have any other
implications ? What's the cost of that ? The only things I can think
of is perhaps the death penalty, technology used to redistribute, and
perhaps addressing any implicit patent grant ideas but this last one
may be controversial to address, not sure.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list?

I agree with Ted, discussion of copyleft-next is entirely off-topic
for LKML. I expect to set up a mailing list soon for copyleft-next.

Regards,
Richard