Transitive Grace Period Public LIcense ("TGGPL") v. 1.0

[Eric Smith]

Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and EPEL)?

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst?re...

As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses
granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common
GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert
eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements
are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year
(section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5),
which I think are similar to the AGPL.

If there are any issues with the license preventing it from being
packaged for Fedora, I think the author may be amenable to working
them out.

Thanks,
Eric

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/28/2014 04:28 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>  Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and
> EPEL)?
>  
>
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst?re...
>  
>  As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses
>  granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common
>  GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert
>  eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements
>  are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year
>  (section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5),
>  which I think are similar to the AGPL. 
This is a rather unique license. It attempts to permit someone to
distribute copies of the licensed work (or a derived work) under
different terms (including non-free terms where the source is not
available) for a period of time not to exceed 12 months. As a result,
works under the TGPPL which are using the "Transitive Grace Period" may
not be available under Free Software terms, and for the purposes of
simplicity, we must assume that any TGPPL licensed works distributed
with a "Transitive Grace Period" are non-free, until that "Transitive
Grace Period" expires.

However, for works which do not choose to leverage the "Transitive Grace
Period", and for which the source code is immediately available for
corresponding binaries under the terms of the TGPPL, it is safe to
consider those works Free (but GPL incompatible, due to the wording of
the license). As the Tahoe-LAFS code is the only known user of the TGPPL
at this time, and it does not currently distribute under the "Transitive
Grace Period", this distinction is useful.

Any Fedora packages which include TGPPL licensed works must choose not
to leverage the Transitive Grace Period.

For the above reasons, Fedora strongly discourages developers from using
the TGPPL.

( This text, along with a copy of the TGPPL has been added to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TGPPL )

~tom

==
Red Hat University Outreach

[Eric Smith]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reviewing the TGGPL. I've forwarded your analysis to the
author. I don't anticipate that he'll change the licensing of
Tahoe-LAFS since it won't be necessary for Fedora.

>  Any Fedora packages which include TGPPL licensed works must choose
> not
>  to leverage the Transitive Grace Period. 
Wouldn't this inherently be true, since Fedora distributes sources of
all Fedora packages?

Since Tahoe-LAFS uses TGPPL with exceptions, should I list it in the
spec as "TGPPL with exceptions"?

Best regards,
Eric

[Tom Callaway]

On 12/03/2014 03:06 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
>  Hi Tom,
>  
>  Thanks for reviewing the TGGPL. I've forwarded your analysis to the
>  author. I don't anticipate that he'll change the licensing of
>  Tahoe-LAFS since it won't be necessary for Fedora. 
I believe Zooko knows about our stance on this, I actually discussed
this with Richard Fontana when the license first came out, and Zooko was
part of that discussion online.

> > Any Fedora packages which include TGPPL licensed works must
> choose not
> > to leverage the Transitive Grace Period.
>  
>  Wouldn't this inherently be true, since Fedora distributes sources of
>  all Fedora packages? 
It should be, but I thought it was worth stating explicitly, lest
someone think they've found a clever loophole. :)

>  Since Tahoe-LAFS uses TGPPL with exceptions, should I list it in the
>  spec as "TGPPL with exceptions"? 
Yes.

~tom

==
Red Hat University Outreach