FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next [LWN.net]

FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next

Posted Feb 24, 2013 3:29 UTC (Sun) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
In reply to: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next by dlang
Parent article: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next

> MySQL is the poster child for the behaviour you are against, just
> like Tivo was the poster child for the behaviour that the FSF was
> against when writing that clause in the GPLv3.

There is a big difference between the copyleft-next provision and the
anti-lockdown provision of GPLv3. The copyleft-next provision works by
granting additional freedom to downstream users (freedom for everyone
to escape copyleft, giving everyone an equal right to create
proprietary derivative works rather than monopolizing that right in
the upstream licensor). The GPLv3 provision imposes an additional
requirement on downstream distributors (beyond pre-GPLv3 consensus
understanding of GPL copyleft requirements). So the comparison seems
odd to me.

> If your purpose is to divide the community further, then go ahead.
> but if you want to unify the community drop this clause

This makes it sound as though there is a sizable "community" of people
who are thrilled or enthusiastic about copyleft/proprietary
dual-licensing/open core business models. I see no evidence that such
a community exists. The effect of this provision will simply be that
those who wish to extend the life of this peculiar legacy use of
copyleft will continue to use the licenses that are being used for
this purpose today.

(Log in to post comments)

FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next

Posted Feb 25, 2013 21:40 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

the anti-tivo provision was justified by the FSF as "granting additional freedom to downstream users"

they used almost the exact same language you are using to defend that provision

FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next

Posted Feb 26, 2013 2:46 UTC (Tue) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677) [Link]

Okay, I do see some similarity. There's an equality principle
underlying both provisions.

GPLv3 section 6 states that the anti-lockdown provision does not apply
"if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product".

In other words, the policy problem the anti-lockdown provision was
aimed at (by the time of its reformulation in public Draft 3 of GPLv3)
was the asymmetry of upstream (or some third party) being able to
install modified versions on the user's device, with the user being
technically thwarted from exercising a similar freedom to install
modified versions on the user's device.

In the copyleft-next provision, the original licensor is effectively
saying "If I get to create proprietary derivative works, then you
ought to have the same right to create proprietary derivative works".

There's also an equality principle underlying some of the GPLv3 patent
provisions that have no counterpart in copyleft-next.

So, yes, principles of equality and nondiscrimination are part of the
legacy of the GPL family (and I suppose FLOSS licenses generally), but
different licenses implement those principles in different ways. For
example, pure non-copyleft licenses say "everyone getting *this* copy
gets an equal right to create proprietary derivative works".