[od-discuss] GG License 1.0

Tue Dec 30 19:28:35 UTC 2014

On 12/30/2014 05:54 AM, Valentino Giudice wrote:
> I would like the GG1 License to be approved.
> 
> The text of the GG License is availale here:
> - http://tldrlegal.com/license/gg-license-1.0-%28gg1%29
> - http://aspie96.altervista.org/gg/en/1.0/
> 
> 
> The GG License is inspired to the Creative Commons Attribution License
> 3.0 and it is very similar to it.
> It basically states the same conditions, but, unlike the Creative
> Commons license, it is suitable for software (quote from the Creative
> Commons website: "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses
> for software").
> I really like the CC-BY license and I decided to make it suitable for
> computer programs too.
> 
> This license can be used by any licensor, without any restriction.
> Also, the text of the GG License 1.0 itself is released into the public
> domain.
> 
> Unlike the CC-BY 4 license, the GG License 1.0 also requires to include
> the title of the original work when available.
> 
> The advantage of this license is the possibility to bring the principles
> of the Creative Commons Attribution licenses in the world of software
> with a short and easy to read license, available in two different
> languages (English and Italian).
> A summary is also available.
> 
> The GG License 1.0 is not copyleft and it should be compatible with any
> other approved license.
> 
> Unluckily, there is no public discussion about this license (as far as I
> know).

Thanks for addressing all of the questions from
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/

I admire any attempt to create a license that works just as well for
software and non-software, so a small part of me is pleased to see this
submission.

However, as the primary intended use case seems to be software, I
suggest you submit to http://opensource.org/approval before this (OD)
group considers. The only approved license at
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ for "code" has also been approved as
compliant with the OSD. We don't have a formal rule that OSD compliance
must come first, but I think it is a good practice to continue.

Grab-bag:
* Some typos, eg "loose" when "lose" is intended
* Citation is not the same thing as attribution
* Termination is not up with current best practice; see CC 4.0 or later
software licenses like MPL2
* You might want to search for "open source" "badgeware" and figure out
how your license is situated relative to those discussions

Mike