On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:41:49PM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/13, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> So I guess what this means is, if you want to avoid the
>> concern, but want strong copyleft, then you need to be very crisp and
>> perhaps less expansive about what a "Derived Work" is.
> That seems related to some of the comments Ted Ts'o has sometimes made
> on this list.
> I have to admit I've thought about this -- not so much the 'less
> expansive' part but the 'very crisp' part. I don't know how to
> (yet), beyond what's already been done. Or without adding a *very*
> long paragraph.
Perhaps this is an item for the FAQ or documentation.
That's basically what I'd been assuming all along, I suppose. The FSF
did the same thing with the GPL, but I'm envisioning something better. :)
I like the idea of explaining it in an FAQ. While FAQs wouldn't
be binding in
an express contract way, but they would show what the practice in the industry
is, which is probably good enough.
With the GPL, for better or worse, the FSF's FAQ has been remarkably
influential in affecting industry assumptions about GPL interpretation.