[od-discuss] GG License 1.0

Tue Dec 30 19:41:17 UTC 2014

+1 on encouraging / asking / defering-to FSF or OSI for software licenses.

On 12/30/2014 11:28 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>