Richard Fontana wrote at 22:12 (EDT) on Tuesday:
No, because common weak copyleft licenses aren't structured as
copyleft plus additional permissions". The one exception is LGPLv3, of
But policy-wise, that's what they are, even if they aren't structured
that way. Frankly, this finding may be the only actual interesting and
new policy discovery that came from the GPLv3 process.
I think the policy case for weak copyleft (vs. noncopyleft) is
progressively weaker, as it were. I'm not prepared to say there should
be no weak copyleft licenses, but it is significant that I have no
intention of copyleft-next either being a weak copyleft license or
having some official LGPL-like weak copyleft variant.
I worry that line of thinking might serve to bifurcate the Free Software
community even further into the historical BSD/GPL camps. Even now, we
see folks teetering on the edge of anti-copyleft because of their
dislike of the anti-lock-down provisions.
I actually think we need *more* weak copylefts along a spectrum. I
hoped GPLv3 plus additional permissions sets were more widely adopted to
take us there.
There's more to licenses than philosophy.
I feel like you just said to me: "There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". :)
Anyway, Free Software licenses are about public policy and philosophy.
The rest is, ultimately, just details. Agreement on what the philosophy
and public policy should be theoretically yields a rather
straightforward drafting task, right?
I think GPLv3 process had some issues because philosophy, public policy,
and drafting were all conflated by everyone.