Different licence for the licence?

[realpixelcode]

I think it might be beneficial if the licence text was put under a permissive licence so that it can be used for derivative licences without having to include licence notices in the derivative. I think that would be acceptable since a licence text can't cause much harm and the “evil guys” targeted by it wouldn't create a derivative licence anyway.

[ghost]

I think it's a good idea ~~because it works well with PR #79~~, but it's up to the core team to decide.

[ghost]

@realpixelcode do you mind sending a link to your "For Good Eyes Only" license? I did not know you were maintaining that, and I think we could use it to turn this issue into a commit or a PR; I would like to see how "fit" it is for being used as a license for NoHarm and its child forks.

I also think we need to move the conversation from #79 to here and add the help wanted label, so others can see it and contribute.

[ghost]

Never mind; I found the license: https://codeberg.org/ForGoodEyesOnly/for-good-eyes-only

However, @realpixelcode, are you sure it's stable? I know that both licenses have not caused litigation, but as a developer, I would not feel safe trusting a license -- or any other software for that matter -- that is not at v1 yet, and using an untested license for an untested license would make contribution difficult.

[tommaitland]

I’m getting very confused between all your replies @IRod22 - it seems we’re having a conversation across 10 different issues about the same thing. Can you stick to the same thread? Or perhaps create a new issue if there’s something more meta you want to discuss?

I’m not suggesting you need to create new forks. Just if you want a fork that has more licenses or incorporates PRS we don’t incorporate them you’re welcome to.

[ghost]

I understand, sir.

[MrAureliusR]

If the text of the license is to be under any license, it should be CC0 or something similar. Though I don't know if other licenses even bother with that because, of course, the whole point of the license is to be copied and distributed freely.

[ghost]

@MrAureliusR, that is a good suggestion, but I would think @tommaitland and the rest of the core team would want some control on what happens to NoHarm. CC0 and Unlicense provide no copyright protection, which could allow other devs to pass off Raisely's work as their own. With my experience gained while assisting the project, I would suggest either CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, or CC-BY-NC-SA where:

• BY means that the fork in question must give credit to Raisely,
• SA means that the fork must abide by Raisely's terms for adopting the license.
• and NC means that NoHarm must be used or adopted non-commercially.

See here for more info on the CC licenses.

[ghost]

@tommaitland, I just did some research on CC licenses, and I would recommend CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA for NoHarm where the latter denies commercial use of the license. I wish I could contribute a PR for this, but I unfortunately realized that I got too carried away with bookkeeping my fork, so unless GitHub and Raisely policies allow me to put my current fork into a full-blown repo, or GitHub plans on rolling out a feature for creating multiple forks, I cannot open a PR without #79's commits spilling in :man_facepalming:.

[realpixelcode]

I would like to see how "fit" it is for being used as a license for NoHarm and its child forks.

I'd recommend against using the For Good Eyes Only Licence for another licence, because it's too comprehensive and also not intended for that. Also, it would be significantly longer than the actual Do No Harm Licence. I agree with @MrAureliusR and @IRod22 that a CC licence would be useful. (CC licences aren't that short either, but most GitHub users are probably familiar with them.)

I would not feel safe trusting a license -- or any other software for that matter -- that is not at v1 yet

Well, the version code doesn't have a special meaning, I just like counting from zero. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

using an untested license would make contribution difficult

The thing is: Even if there were any court verdicts, they wouldn't necessarily create legal certainty, because a verdict can only be valid for one specific litigation in one jurisdiction. Two cases may be similar, but they will never be truly the same. Also, judges are independent (at least in Europe), meaning they don't have to follow other judges' legal interpretations.

[ghost]

@realpixelcode I understand what you mean; I'll look into other licenses similar to CC's unless everyone is happy with the options below.

---

Regarding the CC licenses that I've brought up, I can rank them from how loose or strict they are about license enforcement and licensor protection:

1. CC0 (loosest; no protection; not ideal)
2. CC-BY
3. CC-BY-SA (middle; potentially ideal)
4. CC-BY-NC
5. CC-BY-NC-SA (most strict)

Note: The other two CC Licenses are too strict for redistribution and modification of NoHarm.

[MrAureliusR]

1. CC0 (loosest; no protection; not ideal)

Why do we need to protect the license text? This whole thread doesn't make any sense to me. CC0 is ideal, as we want people to be able to freely use the license in whatever way they wish, including modifying it if they want. I don't know of any other licenses that explicitly license the license text itself, because, as I mentioned before the whole point is the license text should be completely unencumbered. Otherwise, you get into a dependency loop that makes no sense. I strongly encourage the developers of this license to either not pick a license for the license text, or pick something that does not require more conditions or attribution. Otherwise, any time you actually use the license in a project, you then also have to acknowledge the license of the license, which is completely ridiculous.

This could even have unintended legal side effects. If someone using the license forgets to properly acknowledge the license of the license, does that mean their usage of the license is now invalid? And how do you acknowledge the license for the license, in a file called LICENSE-LICENSE.txt or something? This will just add confusion and reduce the adoption of the license. Again, either dedicate it to the public domain with something like CC0 or just don't license it at all, as the de facto license for the text of a license has to be freely available or else it loses effectiveness and adoption.

If you're afraid some company will come along and create a derivative to try and create confusion, just simply put a clause in the license itself saying "Any derivatives of this license must use an unambiguously different name, and must not imply directly or indirectly that the derivative is supported by the original license creators or users." Problem solved.

[MrAureliusR]

@tommaitland, I just did some research on CC licenses, and I would recommend CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA for NoHarm where the latter denies commercial use of the license. I wish I could contribute a PR for this, but I unfortunately realized that I got too carried away with bookkeeping my fork, so unless GitHub and Raisely policies allow me to put my current fork into a full-blown repo, or GitHub plans on rolling out a feature for creating multiple forks, I cannot open a PR without #79's commits spilling in man_facepalming.

On a totally separate note, this is what git branches are for. You can create a new branch based on the current commit of this repo, apply changes to it, and make pull requests from it without touching your other pending changes on other branches.

[realpixelcode]

"Any derivatives of this license must use an unambiguously different name, and must not imply directly or indirectly that the derivative is supported by the original license creators or users." problem solved.

That's a great idea, and I'm highly in favour of it!

[ghost]

"Any derivatives of this license must use an unambiguously different name, and must not imply directly or indirectly that the derivative is supported by the original license creators or users." problem solved.

That's a great idea, and I'm highly in favour of it!

So am I @realpixelcode; we just need @tommaitland's approval. Once he approves, we will need a commit or PR to close this issue. I am willing to do a PR myself; I just need to look for some time to rearrange my fork.

[ghost]

I have a branch ready to contribute. So, where do we want the terms of modification? Should it be in the README, or the code of conduct?

[realpixelcode]

The code of conduct is only a guideline for discussion culture and not a legal document. Such a “terms of modifications” clause could be mentioned in the README, but in order to be certain that there won't be any (deliberate?) misunderstanding, it should just be added to the future licence file as the first sentence (even before the actual licence title).

LICENCE.md:

Provided that your derivative of this licence

1. uses an unambiguously different name and

2. does not imply directly or indirectly that such a derivative is supported by the original licence creators or users,

you are allowed to use the text of the Do No Harm Licence according to the following terms and conditions:

...

[ghost]

Alright, let me turn that into a PR. See you there, @realpixelcode.

[ghost]

This conversation will continue on PR #85.