On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
Suppose the copyleft rule is this: as in MPL, files T must be licensed
under copyleft-next. Files N' can be, but need not be, licensed under
copyleft-next, and instead can be licensed under some sort of
acceptable FLOSS license, copyleft or noncopyleft. GPL, MIT, whatever.
Suppose further that the rule allows anyone to avoid the condition for
the licensing of files N' by distributing them separately. If you want
to distribute N' under a proprietary license, do it
separately. (Ignore the possibility of some definitional problem
here.) Otherwise those files have to be FLOSS, but the precise license
doesn't matter (within some defined limits).
Like Ted, I'm not sure this ends up being substantially/meaningfully
stronger copyleft than MPL. It does impose a slightly larger
engineering tax, I suppose, but still a pretty minor one.
Unless perhaps you mean that any resulting binaries must also be
distributed separately?
That said, it would simplify things for packagers/license auditors,
which is not nothing.
Luis