On 22/05/13 06:49, Richard Fontana wrote:
Yes, but (in my own mind) what that means has recently been
changing, or weakening if you will.
Courage, brother! ;-)
copyleft-next is partly motivated by a desire to reduce complexity
associated with the GPL. It is also motivated by a desire to create a
new GPL-ish strong copyleft license. What I'm now starting to think is
that that problem of complexity may be inherent to how strong copyleft
is conceived by those who have tried to express what it means.
Where is the nexus of that complexity? Is it in the boundary definition
of what is covered and what is not? Or elsewhere?
I don't think copyleft-next should be *forward* compatible with
MPL,
however. That would clearly be admitting total defeat. :)
Well, indeed :-)
Gerv