Re: Draft for discussion: Project Tick General Public License v2.0 (only)

--===============7311641088479194834==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_DBF2EF03-3C96-471B-84DF-DE2194F912DA"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--Apple-Mail=_DBF2EF03-3C96-471B-84DF-DE2194F912DA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hello Bruce, =20
hello all,

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response. I appreciate =
the
concerns you=E2=80=99ve raised and would like to address them calmly and =
directly.

First, regarding the concern that this effectively creates multiple =
licenses:
the intent is not to create alternative grants or variant licenses, but =
to define
a single license with a single set of rights, where certain obligations =
are
triggered only under clearly defined conditions. I want to note that, =
prior
to submission, the text was refined specifically to reinforce this =
single-license
model and to make the opt-in nature explicit at the level of =
obligations, not
permissions.

Your criticism of the use of =E2=80=9Cmay=E2=80=9D and of the phrase =
=E2=80=9Ctreated as conveyance=E2=80=9D is
fair. This point was raised during discussion and informed =
clarifications already
made before submission. That said, I agree that reducing any remaining =
interpretive
ambiguity around activation mechanisms is important, and this is an area =
where
further tightening can still be beneficial.

On the scope of Corresponding Resource and the distinction between =
covered
code and general infrastructure: my goal was to avoid AGPL-style =
spillover into
unrelated systems, not to introduce endless boundary disputes. The =
current
language reflects deliberate narrowing based on feedback received, but I
recognize that this balance must be handled carefully to avoid creating =
new
uncertainty.

Regarding anti-tivoization, the provisions are intentionally narrower =
than GPLv3=E2=80=99s.
This reflects a conscious design trade-off rather than an oversight, =
while still aiming
to preserve users=E2=80=99 practical ability to exercise the rights =
granted under the license.

Finally, on the point about legal counsel: I agree that professionally =
reviewed license
text is always preferable. At the same time, it is also a reality that =
not every developer
or small project has the financial ability to retain legal counsel for =
an extended drafting
process. My approach here has been to incorporate community and expert =
feedback
iteratively and transparently, and to improve the text accordingly =
before submission.

While the license has now been submitted for review in its refined form, =
I view the current
discussion as an important part of validating and stress-testing those =
improvements. I
sincerely appreciate the time and experience contributors are investing =
in highlighting
potential weaknesses and risks.

Thank you again for the candid feedback.

Best regards, =20
Mehmet Samet Duman =20
Author of Project Tick

> Bruce Perens <[email protected]> =C5=9Funlar=C4=B1 yazd=C4=B1 (24 Oca =
2026 04:05):
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 6:08=E2=80=AFAM M.samet Duman =
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> =
wrote:
>> 1. Explicit opt-in for network-based source obligations
>> 2. Network operation triggers source availability only, not full =
conveyance
>=20
> So, this is now three licenses, depending upon what you opt in. This =
is a similar issue to my criticism of Creative Commons licenses. If you =
say you have a Creative Commons license, nobody has any idea what rights =
they have other than the right to read the material. You have also left =
a big door for argument about the inclusion and the clarity of the =
statement enabling the license feature. The more argument, the more =
expensive and uncertain any enforcement of the license.
> =20
>> > Such operation may be treated as conveyance solely for the purpose =20=

>> > of triggering the source availability obligations expressly set =
forth =20
>> > in this License, where an Explicit Network Use Notice applies.
>=20
> May means "you can, but you don't have to. There should be a single =
and definite action that activates the terms or not. And "treated as =
conveyance" is a rather oblique way to say "activates these terms", and =
can be subject to yet more argument.
>=20
> You have also left lots of room for argument about what is general =
infrastructure, unrelated, independent, proprietary, tightly-coupled, =
service glue, deployment-specific code. For example, is all of the =
Debian distribution general infrastructure, every one of 70K packages?=20=

>>=20
>> > Technical mechanisms =E2=80=A6 are permitted provided that such =
mechanisms =20
>> > do not prevent recipients from accessing, modifying, or conveying =20=

>> > the Corresponding Resource of the covered Work under the terms of =20=

>> > this License.
>=20
> The anti-tivoi-ization provisions in GPL etc. generally have the =
effect of making it possible for the platform upon which the software =
was conveyed to have modified software installed and continue to perform =
all of its functions. You didn't state enough to make that effective in =
the language I see.
>=20
> Before you actually submitted this as a license, you would have to =
deal with the GPL copying, and make use of an attorney for the license =
language. Failure to make use of an attorney is in general a harmful =
action to developer who use the license, since it would be prone to fail =
in unanticipated ways, making them incapable of enforcing their =
copyrights, and subject to various sorts of liability. Making the =
language suitable for acceptance is probably a year's work, with some =
expense, don't take it lightly.
>=20
>     Thanks
>=20
>     Bruce


--Apple-Mail=_DBF2EF03-3C96-471B-84DF-DE2194F912DA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html aria-label=3D"message body"><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" =
content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body =
style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hello Bruce, &nbsp;</div><div>hello =
all,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for taking the time to write a =
detailed response. I appreciate the</div><div>concerns you=E2=80=99ve =
raised and would like to address them calmly and =
directly.</div><div><br></div><div>First, regarding the concern that =
this effectively creates multiple licenses:</div><div>the intent is not =
to create alternative grants or variant licenses, but to =
define</div><div>a single license with a single set of rights, where =
certain obligations are</div><div>triggered only under clearly defined =
conditions. I want to note that, prior</div><div>to submission, the text =
was refined specifically to reinforce this =
single-license</div><div>model and to make the opt-in nature explicit at =
the level of obligations, =
not</div><div>permissions.</div><div><br></div><div>Your criticism of =
the use of =E2=80=9Cmay=E2=80=9D and of the phrase =E2=80=9Ctreated as =
conveyance=E2=80=9D is</div><div>fair. This point was raised during =
discussion and informed clarifications already</div><div>made before =
submission. That said, I agree that reducing any remaining =
interpretive</div><div>ambiguity around activation mechanisms is =
important, and this is an area where</div><div>further tightening can =
still be beneficial.</div><div><br></div><div>On the scope of =
Corresponding Resource and the distinction between =
covered</div><div>code and general infrastructure: my goal was to avoid =
AGPL-style spillover into</div><div>unrelated systems, not to introduce =
endless boundary disputes. The current</div><div>language reflects =
deliberate narrowing based on feedback received, but =
I</div><div>recognize that this balance must be handled carefully to =
avoid creating =
new</div><div>uncertainty.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding =
anti-tivoization, the provisions are intentionally narrower than =
GPLv3=E2=80=99s.</div><div>This reflects a conscious design trade-off =
rather than an oversight, while still aiming</div><div>to preserve =
users=E2=80=99 practical ability to exercise the rights granted under =
the license.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, on the point about legal =
counsel: I agree that professionally reviewed license</div><div>text is =
always preferable. At the same time, it is also a reality that not every =
developer</div><div>or small project has the financial ability to retain =
legal counsel for an extended drafting</div><div>process. My approach =
here has been to incorporate community and expert =
feedback</div><div>iteratively and transparently, and to improve the =
text accordingly before submission.</div><div><br></div><div>While the =
license has now been submitted for review in its refined form, I view =
the current</div><div>discussion as an important part of validating and =
stress-testing those improvements. I</div><div>sincerely appreciate the =
time and experience contributors are investing in =
highlighting</div><div>potential weaknesses and =
risks.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you again for the candid =
feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards, &nbsp;</div><div>Mehmet =
Samet Duman &nbsp;</div><div>Author of Project =
Tick</div><div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>Bruce Perens =
&lt;[email protected]&gt; =C5=9Funlar=C4=B1 yazd=C4=B1 (24 Oca 2026 =
04:05):</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote =
gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan =
22, 2026 at 6:08=E2=80=AFAM M.samet Duman &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a=
>&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>1. Explicit opt-in for =
network-based source obligations</div><div>2. Network operation triggers =
source availability only, not full =
conveyance</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So, this is now three =
licenses, depending upon what you opt in. This is a similar issue to my =
criticism of Creative Commons licenses. If you say you have a Creative =
Commons license, nobody has any idea what rights they have other than =
the right to read the material. You have also left a big door for =
argument about the inclusion and the clarity of the statement enabling =
the license feature. The more argument, the more expensive and uncertain =
any enforcement of the license.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px =
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>&gt; Such operation may be =
treated as conveyance solely for the purpose &nbsp;</div><div>&gt; of =
triggering the source availability obligations expressly set forth =
&nbsp;</div><div>&gt; in this License, where an Explicit Network Use =
Notice applies.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>May means "you =
can, but you don't have to. There should be a single and definite action =
that activates the terms or not. And "treated as conveyance" is a rather =
oblique way to say "activates these terms", and can be subject to yet =
more argument.</div><div><br></div><div>You have also left lots of room =
for argument about what is general infrastructure, unrelated, =
independent, proprietary, tightly-coupled, service glue, =
deployment-specific code. For example, is all of the Debian distribution =
general infrastructure, every one of 70K =
packages?&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>&gt; Technical =
mechanisms =E2=80=A6 are permitted provided that such mechanisms =
&nbsp;</div><div>&gt; do not prevent recipients from accessing, =
modifying, or conveying &nbsp;</div><div>&gt; the Corresponding Resource =
of the covered Work under the terms of &nbsp;</div><div>&gt; this =
License.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The anti-tivoi-ization =
provisions in GPL etc. generally have the effect of making it possible =
for the platform upon which the software was conveyed to have modified =
software installed and continue to perform all of its functions. You =
didn't state enough to make that effective in the language I =
see.</div><div><br></div><div>Before you actually submitted this as a =
license, you would have to deal with the GPL copying, and make use of an =
attorney for the license language. Failure to make use of an attorney is =
in general a harmful action to developer who use the license, since it =
would be prone to fail in unanticipated ways, making them incapable of =
enforcing their copyrights, and subject to various sorts of liability. =
Making the language suitable for acceptance is probably a year's work, =
with some expense, don't take it =
lightly.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; =
Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; Bruce</div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_DBF2EF03-3C96-471B-84DF-DE2194F912DA--


--===============7311641088479194834==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVGhlIG9waW5p
b25zIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBu
b3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUuIE9mZmlj
aWFsIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYnkgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUgd2lsbCBiZSBzZW50
IGZyb20gYW4gb3BlbnNvdXJjZS5vcmcgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzcy4KCkxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3VzcyBt
YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKTGljZW5zZS1kaXNjdXNzQGxpc3RzLm9wZW5zb3VyY2Uub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9s
aXN0cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc19saXN0
cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZwo=

--===============7311641088479194834==--