[od-discuss] GG License 1.0

Mon Jan 5 19:05:49 UTC 2015

De-lurking after a long absence...

I agree with the approach to go to OSI first.

Do we have a policy against license proliferation?

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150105/7bbf1a78/attachment-0003.html>