Differences between 0.1.0 and 0.1.1

[Richard Fontana]

Recently Mike Linksvayer said:
>  I have one meta-comment on copyleft-next-0.1.1 -- I wish the
>  announcement came with brief description of changes. 
Here's a belated description of the principal changes in 0.1.1
relative to 0.1.0.

i) Section 1 of 0.1.0 had the sentence:

    This License does not exclude or limit any rights You have under
    applicable copyright doctrines of fair use, fair dealing or other
    equivalents.

Adopting a suggestion made by Pam Chestek, 0.1.1 changed this to the
more general:

    This License does not exclude or limit any rights You have under
    applicable copyright law.

More recent drafts have deleted 'copyright'. This change was recently
discussed on the mailing list.

ii) A few changes in sections 3 and 4 that clarify that the section
currently labeled 'Pass-Through' (the descendant of the GPL's
automatic licensing clause, though it is constructed a bit more like
the corresponding clause in the Creative Commons [at least 3.0 series]
licenses) is not a condition. Implements suggestions made by Pam
Chestek.

iii) The anti-badgeware-abuse language at the end of section 4 adds
"trademark legends" to the list of things that are not "Legal
Notices"
that need to be preserved by the distributing licensee. Implements a
suggestion made by Pam Chestek.

iv) The titles of certain sections (in 0.1.1, 5-8) indicate explicitly
that the sections are 'conditions'. Implements a suggestion made by
Pam Chestek.

v) In the definitions of 'Derived Work' and 'Distribute', the language
"such that copyright permission is required" (a holdover of sorts from
certain language in GPLv3) is deleted as unnecessary. Implements a
suggestion made by Pam Chestek.

vi) In the Apache License 2.0/MPL 2.0-derived subdefinition of
"control" contained in the definition of "You", the language
"the
power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of
such entity" was changed to "the power to direct the actions of such
entity", implementing a suggestion made by Pam Chestek. This is a bug
in the Apache License 2.0, however minor; it is at best unidiomatic
English to speak of "causing the direction or management" of
something.

[Luis Villa]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:29 AM,  <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org&gt; wrote:
>  vi) In the Apache License 2.0/MPL 2.0-derived subdefinition of
>  "control" contained in the definition of "You", the language
> "the
>  power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of
>  such entity" was changed to "the power to direct the actions of such
>  entity", implementing a suggestion made by Pam Chestek. This is a bug
>  in the Apache License 2.0, however minor; it is at best unidiomatic
>  English to speak of "causing the direction or management" of
>  something. 
Merely as a matter of historical/genealogical interest, I believe that
language originates in Netscape Public License 1.0.

Luis

[Richard Fontana]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 08:35:30AM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
>  On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:29 AM,  <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org&gt;
> wrote:
>  > vi) In the Apache License 2.0/MPL 2.0-derived subdefinition of
>  > "control" contained in the definition of "You", the language
> "the
>  > power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of
>  > such entity" was changed to "the power to direct the actions of such
>  > entity", implementing a suggestion made by Pam Chestek. This is a bug
>  > in the Apache License 2.0, however minor; it is at best unidiomatic
>  > English to speak of "causing the direction or management" of
>  > something.
>  
>  Merely as a matter of historical/genealogical interest, I believe that
>  language originates in Netscape Public License 1.0. 
Ah. It was no doubt idiomatic English in 1998 but ceased being so by
2004. :-)

- RF

[Luis Villa]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 08:35:30AM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:29 AM,  <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org&gt; wrote:
> > > vi) In the Apache License 2.0/MPL 2.0-derived subdefinition of
> > > "control" contained in the definition of "You", the language
> "the
> > > power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of
> > > such entity" was changed to "the power to direct the actions of such
> > > entity", implementing a suggestion made by Pam Chestek. This is a bug
> > > in the Apache License 2.0, however minor; it is at best unidiomatic
> > > English to speak of "causing the direction or management" of
> > > something.
> >
> > Merely as a matter of historical/genealogical interest, I believe that
> > language originates in Netscape Public License 1.0.
>
>  Ah. It was no doubt idiomatic English in 1998 but ceased being so by
>  2004. :-) 
:)

I didn't mean it by way of defense of the language (which I agree on
inspection is odd), merely that I find the historical linkages between
licenses interesting and want to keep the record straight.

Really, someone should figure out a way to do a family tree :) [e.g.,
Apache took that language from NPL; NPL took parts of Source Code from
GPL; I'm guessing GPL took some parts of the warranty disclaimers from
some BSD or MIT variant; the common fair use language came from CC;
etc.]

[Richard Fontana]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:29:49AM -0500, fontana(a)sharpeleven.org wrote:
>  Here's a belated description of the principal changes in 0.1.1
>  relative to 0.1.0. 
Actually, these were the only substantive changes.

 - RF