On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:45:44AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> To that end can someone provide:
>
> * A lay review of copyleft-next 0.3.0's GPLv2 compatibility. Is
> there anything that is obvious that makes it GPLv2 compatible ? If so
> what is is? Is there anything that makes it questionable if it is
> GPLv2 compatible? If so what is is?
>
> * A lay review (perhaps a series of bullets) of what the main
> advantages of copyleft-next 0.3.0 are over GPLv2
Hi Luis,
I can provide this, though I may not get to it for a couple of days.
Thanks *poke* :D
> For instance, since CRDA is already copyleft-next 0.3.0
licensed,
> say I wanted to include code from it on a larger overall GPLv2
> licensed code base, what are the implications if I did that to the
> larger GPLv2 licensed body of code? Would just the GPLv2 apply only
> on the larger body of code?
The code from CRDA would be licensed under both GPLv2 and
copyleft-next 0.3.0. The rest of the larger body of code would be
under GPLv2.
Excellent, thanks.
Luis