about_license.md

I discuss two topics below, "Allsembly" as a trademark (together with the 2nd additional term of the license) and wanting to add a static linking exception as a third additional term. Each has been given a separate heading. Also note that the software's license is LGPL verion 3 only (not "or later versions") plus the additional terms.

A static linking exception has already been added. The discussion about that, below, is retained for context.

Trademark

Making "Allsembly" a trademark is not intended to prevent the use of the name, even as a part of the names of other software products. It is intended to prevent its use in ways that cause confusion of those other pieces of software with this one. If another piece of software actually implements Allsembly, e.g., by fulfilling all of the spec. requirements (not published yet), then I wouldn't mind it being called "Allsembly". I would not want it to be misrepresented as the one and only Allsembly, though, as long as this project exists, and especially if that other is not Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). This might become important if the name "Allsembly" comes to have some currency, such as being mentioned in articles or blog posts.

Here are some examples to illustrate reasonable uses:

1. There are free software projects, Keepass 2, KeepassX, and KeepassXC. They all do basically the same thing--password management--with some variation and they are all FOSS. Keepass 2 uses Mono to make it cross-platform.
   KeepassX uses the Keepass 2 database format, but runs natively under X Windows for Unix-like OSes and doesn't rely on Mono. KeepassXC moves KeepassX in new directions since KeepassX development had slowed or its project maintainers wanted to be more conservative about feature additions. This is all fine. They could improve the situation by all having links to the other projects to help the user choose the implementation that is best for them.

2. A couple of decades ago or so, Apple Computer licensed the name "Macintosh" to Hewlett Packard (HP) so HP could manufacture a Mac branded computer. I don't believe they ever did, but one could imagine that Apple would have conditioned it on HP meeting certain technical standards so that their brand would not be tarnished by poor user experience on an HP engineered and manufactured Mac.

The second addtional term of the software license is not intended to place additional obligations on licensees of the software other than what trademark law already requires. It is just to clarify that the license doesn't extend to trademarks. (And it is the name of the software project, "Allsembly", that I had particularly in mind.) In the future, I hope to add a free trademark license to make that explicit.

It is not a pressing need, and it can wait until I am finished with graduate studies and have a full-time job. Then I expect I will hire legal help to draft it.

(The LGPL does not say that a trademark license is granted, but the GPL, which it incorporates by reference, mentions trademark in section 7e. The additional term is meant to avoid the possibility of an implied trademark grant.)

Static linking exception

I would like to add a linking exception allowing distribution of "Combined Works" (see section 4 of the LGPL) without source code for the part that only links with Allsembly code, without being "based on" it (which, in the sense given by the LGPL means onlly calling its functions or subclassing its classes).

I like the LGPL as a good weak copyleft license. My goals in using it are a little different from those of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). I'm interested in a license that encourages widespread use, even commercial use in proprietary software, while requiring that modifications be given back to the community in source code form. I also very much like the LGPLs provisions about giving "prominent notice" so distributors of the sofware and its derivatives may not represent a proprietary version as the only one but must make users aware of a free alternative.

But the provision requiring that the combined version be able to be re-linked with "the Library" (this project's functions and classes) and that its terms allow reverse engineering might be an unnecessary deterrent to use in proprietary products. (I think users should be able to modify their software, but trying to ensure that through copyright is a lesser priority for me for this particular project.)

You might be thinking that it would be best for all implementations of Allsembly (as a community of public policy deliberators) to be open source for transparency to its users--i.e., to enable maximum trust in the integrity of the process. That is true, but there are other uses of the software such as for internal deliberations inside of companies and other organizations or to get feedback from users about products or services.

If a company makes a proprietary product to sell to organizations for those purposes, they might contribute back source code useful for the free software project. And it is also possible that it generates good publicity. If they make a proprietary competitor to the FOSS version(s), at least free version(s) still exist.

Below is the draft language I am considering. Although I am aware that legal issues can be subtle and might require deep knowledge of relevant law, and I am not a lawyer, I will probably add the additional term before consulting a lawyer to avoid complications of having code in the project under two different licenses. But I will wait a little while to get some feedback. The addition can wait until there are pull requests from other potential contributors.

Linking Exception. As an exception to Section 4 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this software give you permission to convey a Combined Work under the terms of your choice [the first part of Section 4 without "that... do not restrict modification... and reverse engineering for debugging..."] provided you meet the requirements listed as (a) - (c) under Section 4 and that you convey the Minimum Corrresponding Source [as in 4 (d0)] but without the need to convey the Corresponding Application Code. This exception does not invalidate any other reason why your software might be covered by the LGPL or the GPL; and it does not alter any license term of any work that is part of the Application combined with the Library even if one or more copyright holders of the Library are also incidentally copyright holders of those works. You must still adhere to all of the license terms of any other works you combine or link with the Library.

It is the intention of the copyright holders that the exception given in Section 1 of the LGPL still apply if it otherwise would have applied by your meeting the terms of Section 4 without the above addtional exception.

It is the intention of the copyright holders that they or their agents be permitted to disassemble, decompile, or reverse engineer the Combined Work for the purpose of determining compliance with the license terms but that the terms under which you convey the Combined Work need not be compatible with reverse engineering, as mentioned in Section 4 of the LGPL, or disassembly or decompilation, for any other purpose.

Note: I don't say anything about "static linking" because I don't intend to restrict the means of linking or combining. Licensees can cut and paste if they want. As I understand it, the LGPL is clear even in such a case that if their code does more with "the Library" than call its functions and subclass its classes, then such code would be "based on" "the Library" rather than just based on "the Application" and need to be conveyed as part of "Minimum Corresponding Source" (i.e., what I've called, above, "contributing back"). The exception excludes LGPL Section 4(e) (the requirement to provide installation information) because it might be interpretted to require that the user be able to modify the Combined Work (see, e.g., https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RemoteAttestation).