Talk:Legal Team/later-version-clauses - Revision history

Wking: Document ambiguity for “you have a copy of the GPL-2.0 (or whatever) but no further grant”

2017-08-08T19:21:24Z

Document ambiguity for “you have a copy of the GPL-2.0 (or whatever) but no further grant”

Wking: Describe inconsistency between GPL and CDDL default choices

2017-08-04T20:39:15Z

Describe inconsistency between GPL and CDDL default choices

Wking: Ask if Motosoto allows "only" (I think it does)

2017-08-04T20:28:18Z

Ask if Motosoto allows "only" (I think it does)

New page

On 2017-08-03 09:59, [[User:Jlovejoy]] [https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team%2Flater-version-clauses&diff=4342&oldid=4336 marked Motosoto as “no "only option”]. But because the only source of later licenses is the Licensor, the distinction seems less clear. If the Licensor wants only semantics, they can just never publish a later version of the license. Motosoto looks like a one-off license (only useful to Motosoto.Com B.V., because the opening paragraph is so specific), but the same sort of issue applies to the APL-1.0 (which is setup to be project-generic). The GPL, CC, and similar families are different because they are generic licenses whose future is goverened by a third party (so the licensor needs to make the only/or-later call at licensing time, vs. making the call at “maybe I'll write a new version of this license” time). I've marked the APL-1.0 as allowing only, but we should probably figure out which way we want to go on this for consistency.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 8 August 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	On 2017-08-03 09:59, [[User:Jlovejoy]] [https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team%2Flater-version-clauses&diff=4342&oldid=4336 marked Motosoto as “no "only option”]. But because the only source of later licenses is the Licensor, the distinction seems less clear. If the Licensor wants only semantics, they can just never publish a later version of the license. Motosoto looks like a one-off license (only useful to Motosoto.Com B.V., because the opening paragraph is so specific), but the same sort of issue applies to the APL-1.0 (which is setup to be project-generic). The GPL, CC, and similar families are different because they are generic licenses whose future is goverened by a third party (so the licensor needs to make the only/or-later call at licensing time, vs. making the call at “maybe I'll write a new version of this license” time). I've marked the APL-1.0 as allowing only, but we should probably figure out which way we want to go on this for consistency.		On 2017-08-03 09:59, [[User:Jlovejoy]] [https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team%2Flater-version-clauses&diff=4342&oldid=4336 marked Motosoto as “no "only option”]. But because the only source of later licenses is the Licensor, the distinction seems less clear. If the Licensor wants only semantics, they can just never publish a later version of the license. Motosoto looks like a one-off license (only useful to Motosoto.Com B.V., because the opening paragraph is so specific), but the same sort of issue applies to the APL-1.0 (which is setup to be project-generic). The GPL, CC, and similar families are different because they are generic licenses whose future is goverened by a third party (so the licensor needs to make the only/or-later call at licensing time, vs. making the call at “maybe I'll write a new version of this license” time). I've marked the APL-1.0 as allowing only, but we should probably figure out which way we want to go on this for consistency.

−	I don't think we're being consistent about marking defaults. For example, the CDDL family allows later versions unless “the Initial Developer includes a notice in the Original Software prohibiting it from being distributed or otherwise made available under any subsequent version of the License”, while the GPL family allows later versions only if the program specified “any later version”, and yet both are marked with “or later” as the default. I think the default logic should be what happens if someone hands you a paper copy of the license text, and says “I'm licensing this work to you under these terms”. In that case, the GPL family would default to “only” (because there is no explicit “any later version” grant). I'~~ll go through and update~~ the ~~defaults accordingly~~ if ~~there is~~ no ~~negative feedback on~~ this ~~approach by 2017-08-8~~.	+	I don't think we're being consistent about marking defaults. For example, the CDDL family allows later versions unless “the Initial Developer includes a notice in the Original Software prohibiting it from being distributed or otherwise made available under any subsequent version of the License”, while the GPL family allows later versions only if the program specified “any later version”, and yet both are marked with “or later” as the default. I think the default logic should be what happens if someone hands you a paper copy of the license text, and says “I'm licensing this work to you under these terms”. In that case, the GPL family would default to “only” (because there is no explicit “any later version” grant). UPDATE (2017-08-08): in today's meeting, there wasn't agreement about what the implied terms were if someone just hands you a copy of the license with no further grant. John Sullivan is going to discuss this case with the other FSF folks and see if they have an opinion.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 4 August 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	On 2017-08-03 09:59, [[User:Jlovejoy]] [https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team%2Flater-version-clauses&diff=4342&oldid=4336 marked Motosoto as “no "only option”]. But because the only source of later licenses is the Licensor, the distinction seems less clear. If the Licensor wants only semantics, they can just never publish a later version of the license. Motosoto looks like a one-off license (only useful to Motosoto.Com B.V., because the opening paragraph is so specific), but the same sort of issue applies to the APL-1.0 (which is setup to be project-generic). The GPL, CC, and similar families are different because they are generic licenses whose future is goverened by a third party (so the licensor needs to make the only/or-later call at licensing time, vs. making the call at “maybe I'll write a new version of this license” time). I've marked the APL-1.0 as allowing only, but we should probably figure out which way we want to go on this for consistency.		On 2017-08-03 09:59, [[User:Jlovejoy]] [https://wiki.spdx.org/index.php?title=Legal_Team%2Flater-version-clauses&diff=4342&oldid=4336 marked Motosoto as “no "only option”]. But because the only source of later licenses is the Licensor, the distinction seems less clear. If the Licensor wants only semantics, they can just never publish a later version of the license. Motosoto looks like a one-off license (only useful to Motosoto.Com B.V., because the opening paragraph is so specific), but the same sort of issue applies to the APL-1.0 (which is setup to be project-generic). The GPL, CC, and similar families are different because they are generic licenses whose future is goverened by a third party (so the licensor needs to make the only/or-later call at licensing time, vs. making the call at “maybe I'll write a new version of this license” time). I've marked the APL-1.0 as allowing only, but we should probably figure out which way we want to go on this for consistency.
		+
		+	I don't think we're being consistent about marking defaults. For example, the CDDL family allows later versions unless “the Initial Developer includes a notice in the Original Software prohibiting it from being distributed or otherwise made available under any subsequent version of the License”, while the GPL family allows later versions only if the program specified “any later version”, and yet both are marked with “or later” as the default. I think the default logic should be what happens if someone hands you a paper copy of the license text, and says “I'm licensing this work to you under these terms”. In that case, the GPL family would default to “only” (because there is no explicit “any later version” grant). I'll go through and update the defaults accordingly if there is no negative feedback on this approach by 2017-08-8.