Questions about copyleft-next

Tue Jul 1 16:56:43 UTC 2025

> it provides some support for the view that a CLA is not needed.

I should have been more precise, I specifically meant the all-too-common type of CLA used alongside the AGPLv3 nowadays, where contributors have to sign over carte blanche rights to the project owners. Doesn't section 6 preclude that kind of CLA, or at least contradict it?

> latest "draft" version

Explicitly listing compatible inbound licenses seems like it could cause issues. What about niche licenses like https://opensource.org/license/bsdpluspatent ?

> https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/src/commit/5fdb9dca6bd9c7ab204976e46ce4663b8d4482c7/Drafts/copyleft-next#L72-L80

Doesn't this make it trivially easy to get around the "affero clause"?

> and a condition in
>   the Compatible License conflicts with any of the terms of this
>   License, You have permission to comply with that Compatible 
> License
>   condition.

Both GPLv2 and v3 contain clauses stating:

(v2)
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. 

(v3)
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.

Ergo per the copyleft-next terms, I have permission to instead comply with this term of the GPL, and ignore the "affero" clause of the copyleft-next license. Am I missing something here or is this a loophole? I believe the EUPL has the same problem if I'm not mistaken.

On Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 at 9:44 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 12:23 PM secureblueadmin
> secureblueadmin at proton.me wrote:
> 
> > I have a slightly tangential question along the lines of
> > 
> > > “I won't engage in proprietary relicensing” and really mean it.
> > 
> > Is the intent of the current section 6 to preclude issues such as the addition of a CLA? https://isitreallyfoss.com/concerns/copyleft-cla/
> 
> 
> That's this section:
> 
> "If You Distribute a work to Me specifically for inclusion in or
> modification of a Covered Work (a "Patch"), and no explicit licensing
> terms apply to the Patch, You license the Patch under this License, to
> the extent of Your copyright in the Patch. This condition does not
> negate the other conditions of this License, if applicable to the Patch."
> 
> This does not preclude the addition of a CLA, but I suppose (aside:
> it's weird to discuss something you know you wrote but don't remember
> :) it provides some support for the view that a CLA is not needed.
> This is clearly modeled on Apache License 2.0 section 5.
> 
> > Also, is there a plan to include an "affero clause" (network distribution) in this license? or in a different license? If so, how could this be done while still preserving the outward compatibility with (non-affero) GPL?
> 
> 
> Excellent question. copyleft-next 0.3.1 does not (as far as I can tell
> :) have an "Affero clause". However, the latest "draft" version of
> copyleft-next, i.e.
> https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/src/commit/5fdb9dca6bd9c7ab204976e46ce4663b8d4482c7/Drafts/copyleft-next
> does have one, which the original licensor can opt out of:
> 
> https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/src/commit/5fdb9dca6bd9c7ab204976e46ce4663b8d4482c7/Drafts/copyleft-next#L90-L98
> (which uses these definitions:
> https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/src/commit/5fdb9dca6bd9c7ab204976e46ce4663b8d4482c7/Drafts/copyleft-next#L226-L237
> )
> 
> It does not conflict with what you call the outward compatibility of
> GPL, because of this (counterpart in the latest "draft" to what I
> called the GPL escape hatch in copyleft-next 0.3.1):
> https://git.copyleft.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/src/commit/5fdb9dca6bd9c7ab204976e46ce4663b8d4482c7/Drafts/copyleft-next#L72-L80
> 
> As another aside, this structure of having "Releases" and "Drafts" was
> probably a bad idea.
> 
> I won't speak for bkuhn (a well known enthusiast of the Affero GPL
> both in theory and practice) but I think as a minimum feature
> copyleft-next should have an "Affero clause" of some sort. That was
> not an assumption I would have made in at least the earlier earlier
> history of copyleft-next, obviously.
> 
> Richard
> 
> > On Monday, June 30th, 2025 at 11:18 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at ebb.org wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:18 PM secureblueadmin asked about:
> > > 
> > > > > [this] is an interesting way of preventing (A)GPL/commercial dual
> > > > > licensing:
> > > > > 7. Nullification of Copyleft/Proprietary Dual Licensing
> > > > > 
> > > > > If I offer to license, for a fee, a Covered Work under terms other
> > > > > than a license that is OSI-Approved or FSF-Free as of the release
> > > > > date of this License or a numbered version of copyleft-next released
> > > > > by the Copyleft-Next Project, then the license I grant You under
> > > > > section 1 is no longer subject to the conditions in sections 3
> > > > > through 5.
> > > 
> > > Richard Fontana replied:
> > > 
> > > > In copyleft-next 0.3.1 the proprietary relicensing poison pill (isn't that
> > > > what we sometimes used to call it?)
> > > 
> > > Shortly after you (Richard) invented §7, I dubbed it the “copyleft equality
> > > clause”: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/
> > > 
> > > I remember because it marked the third time in my career [0] my only
> > > contribution to something important was naming it. Now that I'm active in
> > > copyleft-next again, though, I hope to actually contribute more than names
> > > for things again. 😆
> > > 
> > > I really dislike the term “poison pill” not only for its violence but also
> > > because it's typically a tactic used by contracting parties who don't trust
> > > each other. IMO, the copyleft equality clause is a way that a licensor can
> > > state “I won't engage in proprietary relicensing” and really mean it. It
> > > builds trust while poison pills typically erode trust.
> > > 
> > > secureblueadmin asked:
> > > 
> > > > > However, this license also says:
> > > > > If the Derived Work includes material licensed under the GPL, You may
> > > > > instead license the Derived Work under the GPL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As far as I can tell, it would seem that if there's some code under
> > > > > copyleft-next that you want to include in your GPL/commercial dual
> > > > > licensed software, you can just create a Derived work that combines
> > > > > `copyleft-next` code with `GPL` code, and then use that derived work (now
> > > > > under the GPL) in your GPL/commercial dual licensed software. Is this not
> > > > > a loophole?
> > > 
> > > secureblueadmin noted:
> > > 
> > > > > Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read this and bear with my lack of
> > > > > legal knowledge :)
> > > 
> > > Richard replied:
> > > 
> > > > No need to apologize for what you say is a lack of legal knowledge. I would
> > > > think your question would be equally likely to be raised by a lawyer.
> > > 
> > > I agree. IANAL either but I've been involved in copyleft policy for 30
> > > years, and I still had to stare at the copyleft-next text and your question
> > > for about 7 minutes to make sure I definitely agreed with Denver's and
> > > Richard's analysis.
> > > 
> > > I think I do, for a third, slightly different reason: the copyleft equality
> > > clause actually removes the §§3-5 requirements for everyone in the world all
> > > at once and its binding once the Covered Work is distributed just once.
> > > 
> > > Remember the entity seeking to proprietary relicense has to have exclusive
> > > rights to the code anyway, so they could always license the Covered Work a
> > > new way (including under GPLv2, if they wanted) and didn't need copyleft-next
> > > §3 to do it anyway. Heck, §7 even lets them do it, too, without §§3-5.
> > > 
> > > The big flaw still remaining in the equality clause is that it may not fully
> > > prevent entities in cahoots doing something nasty.
> > > 
> > > Meanwhile, on my “list” of conversations to reopen is a complete overhaul of
> > > the approach in §3¶2 anyway. But more on that much later; not first thing on
> > > my list.
> > > 
> > > -- bkuhn
> > > 
> > > [0] I named the Classpath and the Replicant projects but have contributed
> > > virtually nothing else to them other than the names and moral support to
> > > the developers.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > next mailing list
> > > next at lists.copyleft.org
> > > https://lists.copyleft.org/mailman/listinfo/next