{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13/events","html_url":"https://github.com/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13","id":341085346,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNDEwODUzNDY=","number":13,"title":"Question: Strong-Copyleft Terms","user":{"login":"bhilburn","id":569571,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjU2OTU3MQ==","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/569571?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn","html_url":"https://github.com/bhilburn","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhilburn/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-07-13T16:38:12Z","updated_at":"2018-07-13T18:55:08Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"IANAL.\r\n\r\nPer the README, the Parity license is intended to provide a very strong copyleft license. To that end, the current version of the Parity license uses the active word `Release` in requirements clauses, referring of course to the release of source code.\r\n\r\nHowever, the word `release` is never defined in terms of the license. By this, I mean it seems to me that someone could interpret `release` to simply mean publishing the source code, **but not providing a license under which to use it**. It's worth noting, for example, that [Github's ToS](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#f-copyright-and-content-ownership) explicitly say if no license is specified, this is the default case (i.e., you can fork/view a repo, but have no other rights). \r\n\r\nIn looking for a clause that specifically requires the `release` to occur under the Parity license (or something similar), I did see this:\r\n\r\n```\r\nTo release source code, publish the preferred form for making\r\nchanges through a freely accessible distribution system widely\r\nused for similar source code, and license additional work on\r\nterms at least as permissive as this license.\r\n```\r\n\r\nBut that only seems to apply to **additional** work made to the original, not to the original itself.\r\n\r\nIs this concern valid, or am I misunderstanding how the language works?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/comments/404922507","html_url":"https://github.com/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13#issuecomment-404922507","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/licensezero/parity-public-license/issues/13","id":404922507,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwNDkyMjUwNw==","user":{"login":"kemitchell","id":205760,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjIwNTc2MA==","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/205760?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell","html_url":"https://github.com/kemitchell","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kemitchell/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-07-13T18:55:08Z","updated_at":"2018-07-13T18:55:08Z","author_association":"MEMBER","body":"@bhilburn Again, excellent feedback!\r\n\r\nParity is stronger than AGPL, in that it requires sharing alike in more situations. For example, Parity requires sharing source code of programs built with transpilers, under rule 3.\r\n\r\nBut in another dimension, Parity is _less_ stringent than AGPL, in that once it does require sharing alike, it does not dictate the exact license terms that need to apply to shared code, or require that all license terms for a project as a whole be the same. For example, if you release a library under Parity and I add a feature to it, rule 1 requires that I publish my changes and license them, but I could license my changes under a more permissive license, like [Charity](https://licensezero.com/licenses/charity), rather than Parity.\r\n\r\nAs for your original, Parity-licensed code, I have no legal right to change the license terms that apply to it. You own the copyright, not I. And the Parity license doesn't give me any right to sublicense your Parity code under different terms. In fact, rule 4 of Parity requires that I make sure others know that your code is Parity-licensed:\r\n\r\n> 4. Ensure everyone who gets a copy of this software from you, in source code or any other form, gets the text of this license and the copyright and source notices above.\r\n\r\nI added the words \"additional work\" to the instructions for release in c9c8d842023549aa2b6e1ef1a2b8086c0517f476 specifically to avoid any implication that Parity gives anyone the right to change license terms for source code licensed on its terms.\r\n\r\nLicense compatibility is a concern for any project that incorporates code under different license terms. Even administrative conditions above giving notice and credit can conflict.  But historically, license compatibility pain has been felt mostly from licenses like GPL that require sharing alike under _the same terms_. Every license that says, in effect, \"the whole project must be under _my_ terms\" butts heads with every other license that says anything similar.\r\n\r\nParity doesn't build in any automatic yield-to-GPL mechanism for GPL compatibility, like [EPL 2.0](https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/)'s \"Form of Secondary Licenses Notice\". But on the other hand, it doesn't create the kind of inherent compatibility conflict that GPL does."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"kemitchell"}}