[od-discuss] GG License 1.0

Thu Jan 1 18:53:27 UTC 2015

agreed.  +1

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:

> +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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150101/11ee49e9/attachment-0002.html>