Le mardi 21 mai 2013 à 19:18 +0100, Gervase Markham a écrit :
On 21/05/13 19:04, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:54:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, copyleft-next should be forward-compatible, not only with GPLv2
>> and GPLv3, but also LGPL and perhaps MPL.
>
> Is copyleft-next forward compatible at this point? I didn't think it
> was at the moment, but it's been a while since I've done a close look
> at the terms, and of course, I'm not a lawyer. :-) At the very least
> I'd be surprised if copyleft-next was forward compatible with LGPL at
> the moment.
>
> If it's not, how far away are we from it being forward compatible, and
> what would the tradeoffs be?
Which direction is "forward compatible"?
For me, it is from copylext-next to GPL and friends.
It would certainly be great to get the FSF to grant compatibility in the
other direction, but that sounds like a rather uncertain possibility.
My understanding was that one of copyleft-next's founding
principles was
that it was a GPL-style strong copyleft. (Am I right in that
understanding?) Allowing relicensing of c-n code under LGPL or MPL would
rather scupper that.
It would be nice to get a clarification on that.
Regards
Antoine.