On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 01:33:25AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:57:33PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On 06/27/2016 03:35 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > OK I'll refer to it this way, using
http://copyleft-next.org/
> >
> > Anything else? Since >= is an explicit part of the license how about the
> > simpler version:
> >
> > * Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org>
> > *
> > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > * it under the terms of the latest copyleft-next license as published
> > * online and available at the following URL:
> > *
> > *
http://copyleft-next.org/
>
> I think that's okay. I'm still thinking about an 'official'
recommended
> license notice. My inclination is to say that it's better to give a
> license version number (despite the built-in license upgradeability),
> but I'm kind of undecided.
I'm going to go with including the license version number on the header of the
file following the logic that 0.3.1 has made compatibility even clearer, despite
the built-in license upgradeability. So this looks like this:
* Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 license as published
* online and available at the following URL:
*
*
http://copyleft-next.org/
If this is used though I would hope that this doesn't dilute or create
confusion regarding the built-in license upgradeability feature. To that
end it may be logical to document the recommendation (if the above is
agreeable) to avoid silly issues creeping up in the future. Thoughts?
If we can get https going without some pesky silly warning that'd be nicer as
well.
Luis