This is a Harvey Birdman Rule violation cure.
On or about Wednesday, 17 April 2013, in San Francisco, in the late
afternoon, I had a short conversation with Mike Linksvayer concerning
copyleft-next that I believe triggered HBR.
As I recall: Mike asked me if I was still planning on drafting an
Affero-ish variant of copyleft-next. I said I was, and that I had
recently wondered whether my previous assumption (start with a
non-Affero copyleft-next and work on the Affero variant afterwards)
may have had things backwards.
The substantive obstacle I have been facing with copyleft-next (as I
think I explained on this list a couple of weeks ago) relates to the
'rule vs. standard' dichotomy; I believe a simpler alternative to the
GPL ought to (ideally) require greater ease of application and
interpretation. I do not know how to achieve this, and perhaps it is
not achievable. That is to say, the best we can hope for wrt making
copyleft-next "easier" (beyond the kind of structural and textual
clarity and simplicity already present in existing versions) is to
improve in small ways on some of the basic definitions in
copyleft-next and rely on the development of useful authoritative
interpretation. However, I'm still not ready to concede that.
Anyway, as I recall, I said to Mike that perhaps drafting an
Affero-ish variant of copyleft-next might produce insights into how to
draft what I've previously been thinking of as the vanilla version. I
have also previously and separately wondered whether an Affero-ish
copyleft-next ought to be MPL-like in its approach to the copyleft
boundary issue. This is all related to suggestions, made at times by
Michael Meeks and by Bradley Kuhn, that a "Lesser AGPL" may be useful.