Lovely Public Community License (LPCL)

[osuf oboys]

This is a license that stems from discussions between me and bartbes about projects that are owned by a community rather than a particular person, about rights to continue a project where the original developers are nowhere to be seen, and about the ability to contribute to the development of system as freely as you edit wikipedia pages (with some liberties taken to romantize the backstory). The main difference between releasing a product under LPCL and releasing the product into the public domain is that the community retains the right to decide what software may be advertised as a new version of the original software. If the original software is used by a product that does not claim to be the original software, then no restrictions are imposed on the use, be it commercial or otherwise.

For more information and the license, see the wiki page http://love2d.org/wiki/index.php?title=LPC_License .

This is a license for the community released under itself. If you feel that anything should be done differently, say so, argue so, or just modify the wiki. Any comments or concerns welcome.

The following people have contributed to the creation of this license: Bartbes, Kaze, Osuf Oboys, Robin, Skofo, and Sslaxx (note: that these people have helped does not necessarily imply that they also endorse the use of this license).

A version of the license has been attached, together with a possible community definition (the LÖVE community). See the wiki for a possibly updated version.

Disclaimer:
This license is still in the experimental stage so don't use it yet for something you would never want to change the name of. If you use a version of the license prior to 1.3e, you should also add a ™ symbol or similar on your project page or similar.

[bartbes]

All those credits...

[Xcmd]

Interesting. I tend to release my stuff under a "Don't Blame Me License". The DBML is pretty handy, but I'm not sure how legally sound it is:

This software is released as-is. The author makes no warranty either expressed or implied about this software. Use at your own risk. The author and distributor claim no liability for any damages anyone may occur through direct or indirect use, misuse or disuse of this product. Caveat downloader.

[osuf oboys]

Interesting. I tend to release my stuff under a "Don't Blame Me License". The DMBL is pretty handy, but I'm not sure how legally sound it is:

This software is released as-is. The author makes no warranty either expressed or implied about this software. Use at your own risk. The author and distributor claim no liability for any damages anyone may occur through direct or indirect use, misuse or disuse of this product. Caveat downloader.

Hmm... that does not say anything about what it can be used for though, just that you cannot be held liable. I guess you intended (it is implied?) something with the same liberties as WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/). I wanted the license to be slightly more restrictive when it comes to releasing products under the same name as the product you released yourself and to make it perfectly clear that anyone can, under certain conditions, update the project as they want.

[Xcmd]

I didn't read through the LPCL heavily. I'll take a closer look at it this evening and see if I have any real questions.

[Robin]

I löve it . Are you planning on actually using it for something other than itself?

[osuf oboys]

I löve it . Are you planning on actually using it for something other than itself?

I have added it to the two projects I have released: CAMERA and Lunar Penguin. I hope that it, or a license with similar properties, will be used for community projects such as standard libraries, frameworks, and game editors/IDEs.

[Skofo]

Hm, fun that you did this, but what is the advantage of using this over the BSD license? What do you mean that a community "owns" the project as opposed to the authors? Do they have the copyright? If it's simply about that the community is free to use, modify and redistribute the software, then this is kind of moot since every free software license already handles that. Are those rights restricted to just the community? Because if you discriminate against any groups, then that this cannot be called a free software license, at least according to the DFSG, but I'm pretty sure that the FSF and OSI wouldn't approve it either. [s]What defines a "community"? Is it the internet as whole? The viewers of a wiki? The viewers of a forum? Are forum guests considered a part of the community, or is it just the registered folks?[/s] Are you sure that this is a free software license even if it doesn't discriminate? If it doesn't discriminate, then what's the advantage to using it over another free software license? Are you planning to get a lawyer to look over the license? Are you planning to get this license FSF and/or OSI approved?

tl;dr : What is the difference between using this license and another free software license like, say, the BSD license? You guys didn't seem to clarify that much.

EDIT: Also, can non-LPCL works use LPCL software?

[osuf oboys]

Thanks for the comments. I do not wish to sound rude with this question, I merely wish to gauge how easy the present material is to understand: how much of the wiki and/or the license did you read before asking?

I have done some research on licenses but I'm far from being able to call myself an expert and so I may very well have misinterpreted something and made this license unnecessarily complicated, or even blatant nonsense. If anyone wishes to improve it, you are free to modify the wiki and call it the new version of LPCL (or any other name of your choosing).

Hm, fun that you did this, but what is the advantage of using this over the BSD license? If it's simply about that the community is free to use, modify and redistribute the software, then this is kind of moot since every free software license already handles that. If it doesn't discriminate, then what's the advantage to using it over another free software license?

Releasing to the public domain, the BSD, MIT, apache, and zlib licenses are perhaps the most relevant to compare with. Regarding derivative work not advertised as versions of the original software, the only difference is that we do not require that the license/notice remains in (possibly altered) copies of the software. Regarding derivative work advertised as versions of the original software, I don't know how to interpret most permissive licenses. From my interpretation, Apache reasons that the trademark, e.g. the name, is separate from the usage rights granted by the license and that one may not use it without special permissions. zlib makes it clear that you can not state that you wrote the original version(s) but is not clear whether or not you may advertise new versions under the name. On the other hand, Apache allows contributions to be added under the original copyright and license and releasing to the public domain would let anyone claim that they wrote the original program. LPCL makes it clear that you can use the name unless "the community" notifies you that they oppose it.

What do you mean that a community "owns" the project as opposed to the authors? Do they have the copyright?

An informal statement. The owner of the last version is whoever released the last version. Previous versions are owned by whoever released those. Because of the liberties and restrictions granted by the license, this ownership does not imply much and the primary remaining power (hopefully) rests with "the community".

Are those rights restricted to just the community? Because if you discriminate against any groups, then that this cannot be called a free software license, at least according to the DFSG, but I'm pretty sure that the FSF and OSI wouldn't approve it either. Are you sure that this is a free software license even if it doesn't discriminate?

The rights to demand that a product is not advertised as a new version of the community's product is restricted to the community. If the product is not advertised as a new version of the community's product, then there are no restrictions and the community has no additional rights.

What defines a "community". Is it the internet as whole? The viewers of a wiki? The viewers of a forum? Are forum guests considered a part of the community, or is it just the registered folks?

The released work should state a definition of the community and its ability to exercise the option of forcing a product not to be advertised as a newer version of the community's product. This definition is considered part of the product rather than the license.

Are you planning to get a lawyer to look over the license? Are you planning to get this license FSF and/or OSI approved?

If enough interest is shown, an opportunity arises, or if it becomes important enough. We do not expect this to happen though.

tl;dr : What is the difference between using this license and another free software license like, say, the BSD license? You guys didn't seem to clarify that much.

How should I go about this better? Is it the forum post you're referring to or also the wiki? We state in the top paragraph of the wiki that "The main difference between releasing a product under LPCL and releasing the product into the public domain, is that the community retains the right to decide what software may be advertised as a new version of the original software." and in the text that "there was none [license] that also involved plenty of liberties and some restrictions on what could be called a new version of the original software, without for that sake handing over the responsibility to a particular legal person or organization."

EDIT: Also, can non-LPCL works use LPCL software?

If not advertised as a new version of the LPCL software, then LPCL places no restrictions at all. If advertised as a new version, then there may be restrictions incompatible with LPCL. I presume that it is compatible with GPLv3 by the Additional Terms
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; and
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks.

[Skofo]

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply to that!

I skimmed through the wiki before posting that, then afterwards I looked through the license and found what I needed for one of my questions (the bottom of the license) so I put that question in [s] tags, but now that I look through my earlier post, it pretty much answered almost all of my questions. Sorry for wasting your time. ; But you did answer some other questions for me, so it was not in vain!

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?