Lovely Public Community License (LPCL)

[osuf oboys]

EDIT: Ahh, I was confused what the point of the community clause was in the first place. I understand now. I was under the impression that individuals are allowed to make new versions of software with a regular free software license. That is true anyway, as long as you don't misrepresent it as the original work, and the easiest way to do that would probably be with a name change. Isn't it advantageous to just do that? If the original author of a work has gone inactive, you cannot replace that author with someone who has the exact same mindset, so wouldn't it be better for everyone just to leave it alone and base a newer version under a different name, without all the voting and whatnot? I'd think everyone would be happy with someone continuing an inactive developer's work under a different name, no?

If it's a community project, no. If it's not, I think it depends on the person. Certainly, there's no guarantee that the project would be continued by someone with a similar mindset, but some people, e.g. myself, may prefer that the work is continued even if the new contributors have different visions. You can always save a copy of the old version and continue from there if you choose to return. If you return and dislike the new work, you may call it two different branches or ask the new releases to be renamed. Particularly, you could have left some guidelines and make your decisions based on that.

[osuf oboys]

@qubodup's inexistent message: Anything in particular that's too complicated? Any suggestions welcome.

[Robin]

Could it be an idea to add a clause that designates a single person as "Head maintainer" or something (to be determined by the community), who acts like a Benevolent Dictator, like Linus for Linux, or Guido for Python? I can imagine it would be a bit hard if all decisions must be made democratically by the community. Anyway, just an idea.

Otherwise I've got no problems with the LPCL.

EDIT: Added example community file.

[osuf oboys]

Could it be an idea to add a clause that designates a single person as "Head maintainer" or something (to be determined by the community), who acts like a Benevolent Dictator, like Linus for Linux, or Guido for Python? I can imagine it would be a bit hard if all decisions must be made democratically by the community. Anyway, just an idea.

Otherwise I've got no problems with the LPCL.

EDIT: Added example community file.

I was hoping to avoid having a single person but, yes, in times, it should surely be easier to have certain administrators that make the choices. Note that any such arrangements are stated in the policy/community definition however, not the license itself-

What is a "time where voting of a week is not practical"? Does the Benovolent Dictator make an initial choice which the community may override if they disagree?

[Robin]

What is a "time where voting of a week is not practical"? Does the Benovolent Dictator make an initial choice which the community may override if they disagree?

It was not really meant to be used, just to serve as an example of how the community file could define the role of administrators. (And you're right about the thing not being put in the license, but in the definition of the community. I should have been a bit more clear on the matter.)
What I meant with "not practical" was in situations when speedy decisions are needed, but the real thing should indeed elaborate on that. I also think the community always has to make the final decision (otherwise there is no point in a community license).

The Dictator/Administrator should always represent the viewpoint of the community, or what he/she thinks it is. That's why I said in the draft: "A Dictator may not occupy that position for a time longer than six (6) months." The longer a Dictator is in that position, the more likely it is he/she will act as if he/she is more than a representative (which might be a better term than Dictator).

[Skofo]

Robin, what you are asking for is completely different than what Linus and Guido are for their projects. You want to give one person the power to rule all projects which are under this license. This is a VERY bad idea. Is Linus in charge of all of the software for Linux and does Guido own all of the code created with Python? No, that is a dumb idea, and noone would even create software for Linux or with Python if it were that way. You will not find many informed software developers who would license their hobby work under a monarchical license.

Also, Linus and Guido may be the heads of their respective projects, but they do not state that anywhere in the licenses of those projects. They don't need to.

I don't like the idea of this license that much, even without Robin's suggestion. It over-complicates things for little reason. What happens if the developer of a project does not want to have other people release work under his work's name but people vote to do it anyway? What if a developer goes inactive during v0.2, the community turns it into v0.5, then the developer comes back and wants to work on his project from where he left off? What if that developer wants to change the license in that situation? It's also possible that a gang of friends could team up and ruin CAMERA, LUBE or other libraries/works through the power of democracy, or even one person through the power of internet proxies. Plus I'm not sure that this is actually a free software license, and I'm almost positive that it isn't GPL-compatible; I enjoy linking my GPL-compatible software only to other GPL-compatible software, so now I most likely cannot use CAMERA or LUBE for my games, which is a shame because they're brilliant. No offense to the authors of this license, but I recommend everyone to license their works under more popular licenses which have been looked over by lawyers and free software organizations and used in many projects, such as GPL, X11, zlib and the like.

EDIT: Also, who gets to decide whether or not the "dictator" gets to make a speedy decision? Does the community vote on it?

[bartbes]

Ok, first of all what Robin said, the dictator is just for the problem he/she is assigned for.
Second, LUBE isn't released under LPCL.
Next (I'll stop counting), if you do not want people to release work under the same name: take another license.
And, if the dev wants to change the license that all has to go through the community, but he chose for it when applying the license.
Last, GPL-compatibility? I don't exactly know, but as long as you choose another name the license is the same as the WTFPL, if that isn't GPL-compatible I don't know anymore.

[Skofo]

Second, LUBE isn't released under LPCL.

It isn't? My bad, I must've confused it with ENVY.

EDIT: Also, this isn't about me using the license, the solution to that is easy (i.e. using another license), and I wouldn't need to complain. I'm bringing all of this up because of my fetish to make all of my software GPL-compatible all the way down to the kernel, and I cannot do that with CAMERA and other libraries I may use in the future being licensed under the LPCL, so I'm trying to convince people against it. Really, I do not mean any offense to anyone. It's a really neat idea, but it has a lot of potential to not work out as nice as it sounds, which I think can be simply and very easily fixed by just using standard free software licenses for free software. I mean come on, all this license does different from public domain is give unnecessary special naming rights, and it's creating all this trouble. If someone wants to derive off of CAMERA, can't they just rename it to CAMERAx or UBERCAMERA? Because any free software license allows that.

[bartbes]

Still, what is not GPL-compatible about it? As posted above the protection of the name is basically trademark-protecting, which is GPL-compatible.

[Robin]

Robin, what you are asking for is completely different than what Linus and Guido are for their projects. You want to give one person the power to rule all projects which are under this license. This is a VERY bad idea. Is Linus in charge of all of the software for Linux and does Guido own all of the code created with Python? No, that is a dumb idea, and noone would even create software for Linux or with Python if it were that way. You will not find many informed software developers who would license their hobby work under a monarchical license.

Oh, no! That was not what I meant. The change is not in the license itself, but in the definition of the "community". And that one differs with every project. It does not even give a name, it just states that the community can choose a single person to represent them, for situations where a community as owner makes situations complicated. If I were to put Game X under LPCL, I could define the community as, for example, the editors of a Game X Wiki I put on the web somewhere. I could even define the community to include just me and my two best friends.

Also, Linus and Guido may be the heads of their respective projects, but they do not state that anywhere in the licenses of those projects. They don't need to.

As for that, the licenses for Linux and Python (GPL and the Python license respectively) are not community licenses. They use different techniques, that do not require a definition of the community. Neither GPL or LPCL include a (single) definition of the community. With LPCL the definition is attached to the license.

EDIT: Also, who gets to decide whether or not the "dictator" gets to make a speedy decision? Does the community vote on it?

The representative chooses whether they make a decision. The community can decide afterwards if the representative did a good job.