Yzena Viral License Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Yzena Viral License (YVL)?
Is the YVL viral like the GNU GPL and the GNU AGPL?
Yes, this license is viral, like the GNU GPL and the GNU AGPL.
Who are you? And are you a lawyer?
I am Gavin D. Howard, founder of Yzena.
No, I am not a lawyer, but most of this license is taken from the Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0 (BOML), which was written by lawyers.
Why did you choose the BOML to start with?
See here, here, here, and here. Basically, the BOML is supposed to be a model for how licenses should be.
What is the list of changes you made from the BOML?
These are the changes I made:
- Added to the Purpose section about publishing changes for any public use.
- Added the Source Code section.
- Added the This Software section.
- Added the Combined Software section.
- Added the Application section.
- Added the Compatibility section.
- Added the Distribution section.
- Made it a requirement to give users the full license in the Notices section.
- Added the Credits section.
- Added the Trademarks section.
- Added the Litigation section.
- Added the Non-Interference section.
- Changed the Excuse section such that any contributor has to give notice of non-compliance, instead of anyone.
- Added references to the Distribution, Credits, Trademarks, and Litigation sections in the Excuse section.
- Tweaked the Reliability section.
- Added indemnity to the No Liability section.
- Added the No Duty section.
- Added the No Relationship section.
If you mostly copied the BOML, why shouldn't I just use that one?
You actually should; if all you need is a typical permissive license, then yes, you should use the BOML.
However, there are five important clauses in the YVL that are not in the BOML:
- Credits for giving credit,
- Trademarks for protecting trademarks,
- Litigation for prohibiting patent litigation,
- No Duty and No Relationship for better liability protection.
If you need those three things in a license, then the YVL might work for you. Be sure to consult with your lawyer first.
In addition, this is also a viral network copyleft license, so if that's what you need, that is another reason the YVL might work better for you. Again, be sure to consult with your lawyer first.
Why do you use such vague language and don't define some of your terms?
Because the BOML doesn't. See more here and here. I decided that if lawyers did it, it should be fine.
Your Credits section doesn't actually require giving credit.
No, it doesn't. But it does require providing the verbatim text of the
NOTICE.mdfile, and I assumed that the contributors would add whatever credits they wanted in there.
You also don't require giving a link to the original project, if someone makes changes and relicenses the code.
No, but I also assumed that the original contributors would put that information in the
NOTICE.md, and that text must be provided verbatim.
That assumption simplified the license, which makes things easier on contributors and users.
Why does the Credits section require that the file be in the Markdown format?
It made it easier to write the license and will make it easier to comply with the license.
More concretely, the Apache 2.0 License uses the phrase "NOTICE file." I decided to avoid that awkward language.
And while I could have chosen any file format, Markdown is text, easily readable, well-supported (with ways to convert it), and should have all of the features that would be needed for such a file.
The Credits section says that it is required to provide the verbatim text of the
NOTICE.mdfile. Why didn't you just require people to provide the file?
Because if someone makes changes to the software, I wanted them to be able to add their own credits to the
NOTICE.mdfile, which they can do by adding theirs at the bottom or the top of the original, since the verbatim text of the original will still be intact.
What do you suggest putting in the
I suggest adding these things:
- The name of the original software.
- The original copyrights on the software.
- A link to the original code/repository.
- A link to the Yzena Viral License to inform users that it is possible to get the original under this license if they wish.
- The (preferred) names of all contributors that want credit.
I also suggest having a paragraph that says:
All files in this repository are under the Yzena Viral License, Version 0.1, and all such files are considered part of the "source code" as defined by that license.
In addition, if there are files in the repository that used to be under any licenses other than the YVL, then I suggest listing all such files, along with their respective former licenses and copyrights, as required by their former licenses, but to also make clear that the files have been relicensed.
The previous question implies that everything in a repository should be under the YVL. What if there is code that is under other licenses?
Such code should be relicensed, if possible. This is possible with permissive licenses.
If it is not possible, then such code should not be integrated into the repository.
Does this mean that any code under the GPL family of licenses should not be integrated into a repository under the YVL?
Why do you care about patents and trademarks?
Because I want to be able to make a business based on Open Source software, and I do not want to have to worry about losing trademarks or possibly getting sued for patent infringement.
Also, software patents are, in my opinion, illegal because you can't patent algorithms. They have also never been used for actual innovation, which makes them useless.
Why did you not use a sunset clause, like copyleft-next? That seems like a good idea.
It is a good idea, since the term of copyright is much longer than it should be.
However, unlike movies or other works of art, software is constantly changing. So if there was such a sunset clause in YVL, it might be ambiguous whether or not the clause applies to all of the software, or just those portions that have existed as long as the sunset term.
Instead, I opted to keep the BOML's Reliability clause, which should serve the same purpose.
Why did you not use a nullification of copyright clause, like copyleft-next, to prevent proprietary dual licensing?
While that clause is also a good idea, its purpose is also somewhat fulfilled by the Reliability clause.
Why did you use the vague phrase "make...this software...part of any application that is available for public use"?
I intentionally wanted to make the requirement for sharing source kick in for every public use of the YVL-licensed software, whether direct or indirect. I want code to be shared, first and foremost.
Obviously, if a company makes a public-facing webapp that uses YVL-licensed software, that is making it available for public use, and they should be expected to share their changes, if any.
However, if YVL-licensed software is used only as part of private infrastructure, there is no expectation to share changes.
Also, this definition has some other good side effects: it includes software used on things like arcade machines and software included on OEM machines as well, among other things.
Yes, if YVL-licensed software is used in an arcade machine available in a public arcade, that is covered under this definition, as is any software that comes preinstalled on computers or phones sold by manufacturers.
In essence, the reason is that this is a tiny change from the "available to the public" phrase used in the GPL (which already covers software distributed with devices) that should cover the SaaS loophole.
Where do you draw the line "part of an application available for public use"?
My line is best illustrated with an example.
Say I write database software and license it under the YVL. If a company makes a publically available webapp that stores data in my database, even if that database also holds data for their non-public monitoring system, I would consider that the database is part of the publically available webapp, and they should share changes.
However, if the company does not use my database to store data for the webapp, but only uses it to store data for their non-public monitoring systems, then that would not be part of the publically available webapp, and they do not need to share changes.
What's with the weird definition for "this software"?
GitHub Copilot. I want the YVL to poison the well for machine learning like that.
The reason is that GitHub is arguing that using FOSS code in Copilot is fair use because using data for training a machine learning algorithm has been labelled as fair use.
However, even though the training is supposedly fair use, that doesn't mean that the distribution of the output of such algorithms is fair use.
The definition of "this software" is crafted to exploit this discrepancy.
But maybe the output of the algorithm is under fair use as well.
If it is, then copyright disappears entirely from software. The reason for this is that we already use algorithms to transform our software. We call those algorithms "compilers," and their output "executables" or "libraries." No one claims that a source code's copyright does not apply to the binary forms output by a compiler.
What if the output of a machine learning algorithm is transformative? Would that not be enough to defeat copyright?
A compiler's output is also transformative, especially if it does optimizations. This especially applies if the compiler is doing link-time optimization using inlining with code from different sources. In that situation, a compiler is combining multiple sources in non-obvious ways, just as machine learning models do.
A compiler can even transform an
O(n)algorithm into an
In other words, unless GitHub Copilot wants to throw out copyright on software completely, this license will apply to the output of its model.
Why didn't you just add a clause protecting the output of machine learning?
I think the definition is wonderfully broad in a way that is best for end users, which is my central purpose: to serve end users who are hurt most by proprietary software.
In addition, I don't know what sorts of things will be done to software in the future, and I want to future-proof this license as much as possible.
Your extra restrictions make your license incompatible with the GPL and AGPL.
I don't think so.
First, they are not extra restrictions; they codify something that I believe already exists in the GPL and friends.
Second, even if they are extra restrictions (which would make this license incompatible with the GPL), I think I am okay with that.
In fact, if my licenses are not compatible with the GPL and friends, then I will keep the terms I have and accept the incompatibility. I can do this because these licenses will mostly be used for code in a new language, which means that I wouldn't be able to use existing code easily anyway.
Your extra restrictions make your license non-Open Source.
Once again, I don't think so, and for why, see above. The new parts are not new restrictions; they are clarified.
But even if the license is non-Open Source, I'm not sure I care.
The reason is this: I believe FOSS licenses have failed. We have so many companies that have used the freedoms we have tried to give users in order to extract value (data or something else) unethically from those very users. They do this by claiming the rights of distribution that the FOSS licenses give them and then using those rights to distribute Open Source software to users in such a way that they don't realize that they are being taken advantage of.
The more I've understood that, the more I have come to realize that the current iteration of FOSS licenses do not work.
But what will work?
Remember how I said that companies claim the rights of distribution we give them? As it turns out, end users, so-called because they are at the end of a chain of distribution, don't usually use distribution rights.
That means that the next generation of FOSS licenses can probably more heavily restrict how licensed software is distributed while allowing for no restrictions on the other two freedoms of the four freedoms.
I'm not ready to go that far yet. If I was, I'd add a clause forbidding ads in the software. But that is probably the sort of direction we need to go.
Your license is actually viral, since it makes the license apply to the full output of algorithms.
I carefully defined "source code" to ensure that was not the case.
You see, while the license does apply to the entire output, the requirement is still to provide only the source code of the original. There is no requirement to provide the source code of the entire combined software.
Why did you say that "this software" only includes output of algorithms that is itself software?
Technically, you can run software through things like hash functions, which are algorithms, and the output is entirely unusable as software. Saying that the license would apply to output like that would never work.
The same goes for static analysis tools. They don't usually output something that can be considered "software"; instead, they output a list of problems with the software. I wouldn't want that to be affected by this license.
In other words, that little part of the definition is required from making the definition so broad that it becomes useless.
Your definition of "this software" has "this software" in the definition.
That's because the definition is recursive. The base case is the source code of the software, and then whenever the source code, or the result of transforming "this software" is transformed by an algorithm, the definition recursively applies.
Why did you define "source code"?
In order to make this license non-viral and because of the recursive definition of "this software". See the previous question.
What's up with the Non-Interference clause?
That's the anti-Tivoization clause.
Your Non-Interference clause is too much of a burden.
I agree that it can be, and like Linus Torvalds, I think there can be legitimate uses for Tivoization.
Therefore, I also explicitly recognize the use of the YVL without the Non-Interference clause.
If you do use this license that way, then to prevent confusion, please call it the "Yzena Viral License 0.1 with the Non-Interference Exception" or "YVLNE 0.1".
Why did you include an indemnity clause?
This was suggested by an open source developer facing a lawsuit. That developer said that perhaps if the license used had had an indemnification clause, the lawsuit might not have moved forward.
I don't know how true that is, but I figured I would put the clause in unless a lawyer says otherwise.
Why is there a clause saying that the disclaimer needs to be legal?
Because apparently, the UK might not recognize such disclaimers, and I don't want to open myself up to litigation for trying to do the right thing.
Why is there a sentence saying that contributors have no duty towards users?
For the same reason as the above question. This second sentence should clarify that contributors have no duty, including fiduciary duty, towards users, and if they do, there is no license, which, in either case, means that there is no duty.
Why does the license explicitly say there's no relationship between users and contributors?
It was suggested by an open source developer facing a lawsuit.
Why did you write this FAQ when nobody has asked you any questions yet?
To establish intent. If these licenses have to be tested in court, then if my intent is clear, that can help judges and juries resolve ambiguities and decide if a license violation happened.
The GPL and AGPL did the same thing. However, in those cases, the licenses include the intent in the preambles to the licenses, which muddies the waters. The reason for this is because if the preamble conflicts with another part of the license, which part wins?
To stop that from happening, I set forth my intent in this FAQ, but I also explicitly made it a separate document (in the repository). That way, if the FAQ conflicts with the license, the license wins hands down.