
Tgppl, a new type of open-source license - erwan
https://electriccoin.co/blog/introducing-tgppl-a-radically-new-type-of-open-source-license/
======
nsajko
This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF
and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I
guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why
present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a
good idea.

If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more
prominent in the blog post.

EDIT: indeed, both the 2008 mailing list post and this blog post call it
"Transitive Grace Period Public Licence v. 1.0".

EDIT2: to be more constructive, a more proper way to describe the license
could perhaps be "open-source-like".

EDIT3: framing this as an issue of honesty was a mistake, because Zooko or
whoever can hold whatever opinion they like. It is a big issue anyways, see
downthread if not convinced.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a
single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source
or not.

~~~
geofft
It's not - there are two entities (FSF and OSI), they happen to have similar
definitions, and a number of important organizations (Linux distros, vendors
with special plans for open-source users, employers with open-source
contribution policies, etc.) all happen to have specified their definition in
terms of one or both of those _because they 're pretty good definitions_. For
instance, Ubuntu's licensing policy has text that pretty closely matches the
OSD's, but does not defer to the OSI for the definition. (And Debian's, of
course, is the text _on which the OSD was based_ \- any changes to the OSI-
maintained OSD would not necessarily flow back to the DFSG. Debian also
considers some of the FSF's own licenses non-free, for good reason IMO.)

Concretely, if the OSI were to change the OSD in either a way that included
things like the SSPL or that included things like the Hippocratic License, I
think there's a good chance that my employer's internal OSS policies would
change to say "the version of the OSD before 2020," because it's not clearly
in their interest to contribute company-owned code to projects under those
licenses. On similar grounds, I'd expect companies that provide free services
(hosting, CI, etc.) to F/OSS projects to say "these licenses don't count,"
Linux distros to not universally agree on including them, etc.

So you're _already_ in a place where there's no sole authority: you need to
start by convincing everyone other than the OSI that a new sort of license is
actually a good idea and the change you want to make to the OSD is actually
something that they, too, should consider "open source." And once you get to
the point where enough people agree with you, the OSI isn't going to be in
your way in any practical sense.

~~~
notRobot
> Debian also considers some of the FSF's own licenses non-free, for good
> reason IMO.

I'm curious about this, do you know which ones?

~~~
duskwuff
The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It's generally well-intentioned,
but it places some weird restrictions on modification and reuse. In
particular, it allows the author of a text to define "invariant" sections of a
text which cannot be removed or altered in copies of the work, and
automatically applies this restriction to sections of a document with certain
names (like "Dedication").

The GFDL also _theoretically_ forbids users from storing GFDL-licensed
documents on encrypted storage, as the license states that "You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of
the copies you make or distribute". I don't think that reading was intended,
but the license doesn't clarify further. :)

Further analysis:
[https://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml](https://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml)

------
yjftsjthsd-h
Well I'm skeptical, but at least unlike 99% of "radically new type of open-
source license[s]" I _think_ this one is actually, y'know, an open source
license and not shared source pretending otherwise. If I'm reading "External
Deployment" correctly, it's sorta like AGPL but with a time delay, which is...
Not terrible, really.

------
iameli
Haven't gone line-by-line on this one, but I like the new trend of "time
limit" licenses. If I'm trying to start a business, something AGPL-ish might
make sense in the short term to avoid bigger competitors copying everything
we're doing. But that doesn't mean I want my great-grandchildren to be able to
sue for violations 90 years from now. "AGPL for now, MIT later" seems like a
good compromise.

~~~
tptacek
You don't really need a new kind of license for that; you can just AGPL now,
and release MIT later (assuming you're assigned the copyright for all the
code).

~~~
pas
That doesn't guarantee downstream users that later they'll in fact have the
code as MIT licensed. The author can change their minds, or just thinks it
isn't worth the hassle. (Or some big corp buys them and they won't care.)

~~~
t0astbread
Isn't that always the case if the author is the sole copyright holder (or all
copyright holders agree)? (Meaning that regardless of the license the
copyright holder can always choose to not distribute new versions under that
license anymore.)

~~~
pas
But that's completely different than having a released version that we know
will be available as MIT in X months.

It might mean you can start developing something based on the code and when it
becomes MIT you can launch it and keep your additions to yourself. (Let's say
in case of a server side thing.)

------
nordsieck
This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software.

Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which
"reset" the clock continuously.

It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work
which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts
ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the
timer.

With software, the only time that happens if after the software is abandoned.
At that point, there's rarely many people interested in using it anyhow.

~~~
GranPC
I haven't read the license fully, but wouldn't that just mean you would be
able to use releases that are older than the time period specified?

~~~
rpdillon
That's my reading as well. It's actually kind of funny to me: the term of
copyright has grown so long that folks are essentially looking for ways to
reimplement reasonable copyright term length inside of the construct of
copyright protection itself.

------
yissp
"ECC released its implementation of Halo 2 under the TGPPL license."

This had me confused and excited for a second. Alas, it's hot the Halo 2 I was
thinking of.

------
samfisher83
This license sort of sounds like a patent. The creators get to make some money
for a little while and then it gives everyone access to the software.

~~~
moonchild
In fact, it almost sounds like copyright—or, would have, if not for disney.

------
Animats
_“Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful
arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries.”_

Depends on the time limit. US copyright was once 23 years, now it's 95-120
years in the US. If this is for 1 year, well, maybe. If it's for 10 years, no.

And can it be "evergreened", with the time limit running out 1 year after the
most recent change? (See MPEG-LA for how to do that.)

------
StavrosK
Can someone better-versed in legalese explain how this works? What is the
restriction before the 12 months (and what happens after that?). Say I make
money from the code, what about the contributors? Do they contribute code and
get nothing for it, or am I supposed to pay them a cut?

~~~
Gaelan
If I'm reading the blog post right, it's essentially MIT for 12 months after
you make changes, then (A?)GPL after. (To be clear, not those actual
licenses.)

------
numlock86
Can someone summarize in like 2 sentences what this license is trying to
solve?

The article mentions underfunding, but since this is a license and not a price
tag I don't see how this is going to change that. Also from the comments it
reads like this is going to limit usage within "big $$$ cloud providers".
Well, my wild guess would be that such projects would get even less attention
(read as: money) then.

------
linkdd
Reminds me of Sentry's model: [https://blog.sentry.io/2019/11/06/relicensing-
sentry](https://blog.sentry.io/2019/11/06/relicensing-sentry)

~~~
gregwebs
Their BSL has a 3 year period (whereas this license has a 1 year period).
Sentry also admit it is by definition not an open source license since it has
restrictions on particular uses.

TGGPL claims to be open source and probably is because everyone gets the same
rights. But you are always potentially looking at code that is a year behind.

------
jancsika
I've never understood why there isn't a dev framework to allow users to
"unlock" certain FOSS features.

E.g., you scroll through a list of already implemented/tested features that
are stored somewhere that isn't publicly accessible, perhaps with demo videos
if it's UI stuff. Each one is priced. If someone pays the price, then the
source for the feature gets automerged (if possible) and ships with the next
version of the software.

If it's served by the same maintainers who run the project then there's no
trust issues with it.

~~~
egypturnash
So you want developers to spend a lot of time making new features on spec?

~~~
jancsika
That's what FOSS developers already do. It's just that typically they don't
get paid for it at all.

------
jopsen
Sounds radicałly similar to:
[https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php](https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php)

------
dathanb82
This doesn't seem like it actually solves the capture problem, though. The
most egregious cases I can think of of third-party capture involve taking a
project, bundling it with infrastructure, and offering it via a SaaS model
(obviously thinking of Kafka, Elastichsearch, Postgres, MySQL, etc. via AWS).
Only direct modifications to the project source are covered by the license,
right? So the infrastructure code that make it easy to create instances of the
product (but don't involve changes to the product code directly) aren't
affected.

------
ksec
>Radically...

I vaguely remember reading a similar Open Source License, but couldn't google
it.

And it reads very AGPL like. Which may be a big no no for many Cooperation and
Enterprise. And what if the Author Set a Grace Period of 50 years or longer?

It feels to me a solution looking for problem.

~~~
janoc
It is a solution for people who want to keep their software proprietary
because they think they can't make money out of it if it is open source. All
the while they get to claim credit for it being "open source".

The problem is that this license completely obliterates the major points of
OSS licenses - which are open collaboration and security. Nobody is going to
contribute and fix bugs in old versions of the software which may not even
work anymore (e.g. because some underlying protocol or infrastructure have
changed already).

------
kaszanka
This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent
problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow
prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.

~~~
PaulDavisThe1st
... and collecting US$17-20k per month (post COVID19 expansion, or was it just
version 6.0?)

~~~
raphlinus
Super! My understand is that Krita's distribution through app stores has a
similar flavor - it's pure GPL, no tricks, but people pay for the convenience
and assurance of downloading the official version of the app.

My personal feeling is that as PC's become more locked down and less under
user control, paying for the digitally signed version might increasingly
become a viable business model. Trademarks and TOS enforcement might be a more
effective moat against being undercut than copyrights and licenses.

