license "governance"/interpretation?

[Luis Villa]

Richard's recent post said the following about FSF, and commercial use of
the license:

> > Could you elaborate a bit on this? My sense is that the primary
> objection
> > for commercial users of the license has to do with the nature of the
> > copyleft rather than the specific language that implements the copyleft, 
so
> > for *commercial* adoption I think the drafting question is
> definitely 
only
> > marginal in effect. [Not to say a rewrite wouldn't help
> commercial
> > adoption, but that it is far from the primary issue.] 
>  I agree it is not the primary issue. I would also say that the
>  commercial objection to copyleft specifically has to do with
>  (sometimes severely-mistaken) perceptions of FSF-influenced
>  interpretation of the GPL (which copyleft-next implicitly accepts as
>  essentially correct from a policy standpoint). 
Putting aside whether or not the critique is correct, this begs the
question: if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how
will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being
formally FSF-affiliated, or...?

To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's policy, which I
agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a
perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how
does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any
perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or
some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for
post-release interpretation, or...?)

Luis

[Richard Fontana]

On 01/26/2013 03:10 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>   if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how
>  will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being
>  formally FSF-affiliated, or...? 
Yes, possibly, though I wasn't thinking this at first (and I still can
imagine a utopia where the FSF decides to adopt copyleft-next 1.0.0 as
GNU GPLv4 :-).

I guess I could go into this at more length, but I think there are
historical reasons (not all of which I understand) for why multiple
overlapping clouds of understanding of what the GPL means
(particularly as to the key copyleft scope issue) have developed, some
of which are clearly overbroad from the FSF's perspective. Those
historical reasons have something to do with the waxing and waning
social influences of the FSF during various times in its history.

>  To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's
> policy, which I
>  agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a
>  perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how
>  does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any
>  perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or
>  some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for
>  post-release interpretation, or...?) 
Post-release interpretation is something I have indeed thought about
(inspired by the examples not only of the FSF with the GPL but other
license stewards that have provided interpretive FAQs and such).

It is clear that interpretation (of some persuasive nature)
post-release is necesary. This is largely how the various notions of
what GPL copyleft means developed.

I do not envision (at least in the longer term) stating something like
"if you want to understand copyleft-next, go read the FSF's FAQ on
interpreting the GPL". I do envision saying that (as to the copyleft
scope issue) copyleft-next is not intended to lead to results that
would differ from the results achieved under a "correct" reading of
the GPL. In fact, I've just said it. :)

I'm not sure how to address the matter with governance apart from not
having copyleft-next be an effort dominated by the FSF, which is
already the case (note: I would love to have the active participation
of persons affiliated with the FSF [hi Josh, hi {in seven months when
he reads this} Bradley!] [subject of course to the requirements of the
Harvey Birdman Rule, etc.], but sadly I don't currently see that
happening).

- RF

[Joshua Gay]

hi

On 01/26/2013 04:18 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  On 01/26/2013 03:10 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> >  if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how
> > will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being
> > formally FSF-affiliated, or...?
>  
>  Yes, possibly, though I wasn't thinking this at first (and I still can
>  imagine a utopia where the FSF decides to adopt copyleft-next 1.0.0 as
>  GNU GPLv4 :-).
>  
>  I guess I could go into this at more length, but I think there are
>  historical reasons (not all of which I understand) for why multiple
>  overlapping clouds of understanding of what the GPL means
>  (particularly as to the key copyleft scope issue) have developed, some
>  of which are clearly overbroad from the FSF's perspective. Those
>  historical reasons have something to do with the waxing and waning
>  social influences of the FSF during various times in its history.
>  
> > To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's policy, which I
> > agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a
> > perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how
> > does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any
> > perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or
> > some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for
> > post-release interpretation, or...?)
>  
>  Post-release interpretation is something I have indeed thought about
>  (inspired by the examples not only of the FSF with the GPL but other
>  license stewards that have provided interpretive FAQs and such).
>  
>  It is clear that interpretation (of some persuasive nature)
>  post-release is necesary. This is largely how the various notions of
>  what GPL copyleft means developed.
>  
>  I do not envision (at least in the longer term) stating something like
>  "if you want to understand copyleft-next, go read the FSF's FAQ on
>  interpreting the GPL". I do envision saying that (as to the copyleft
>  scope issue) copyleft-next is not intended to lead to results that
>  would differ from the results achieved under a "correct" reading of
>  the GPL. In fact, I've just said it. :)
>  
>  I'm not sure how to address the matter with governance apart from not
>  having copyleft-next be an effort dominated by the FSF, which is
>  already the case (note: I would love to have the active participation
>  of persons affiliated with the FSF [hi Josh, hi {in seven months when
>  he reads this} Bradley!] [subject of course to the requirements of the
>  Harvey Birdman Rule, etc.], but sadly I don't currently see that
>  happening).
>  
>  - RF
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  copyleft-next mailing list
>  copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>  https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next
>