On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:41:21PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:31:00PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> This is a strange idea, but it is a kind of stronger copyleft than
> exists under MPL-like licenses.
I'm not sure I understand why you consider it "stronger". The main
difference as I understand it from your description is that unlike in
the MPL, where the copylefted files and non-copylefted files can be
distributed in the same tarball, in your proposal, this is prohibited,
and the files have to be distributed in two separate tarballs. Is
that a correct rendering of your idea?
First, I don't yet know exactly what I mean by separate distribution
(although as I noted GPLv2 incorporates this idea that 'some kinds of
things are different if distributed separately' -- something which I
am responsible for deleting from GPLv3, because it seemed to me that
many lawyers I was interacting with at the time found that clause
confusing and unhelpful). But for simplicity let's assume it has to
mean two separate tarballs.
That aside, what I am suggesting is not what has to be copyleft
vs. what can be noncopyleft, but rather what has to be open source
vs. what can be proprietary.
Still, you're right that, as I outlined it, the main difference with
MPL is that MPL allows me to easily create a 'Larger Work' that
consists of, say, some MPL files and some proprietary files, whereas
in my proposal you'd need to engage in 'separate distribution' to
distribute proprietary files bearing certain relationships to the
copyleft-next files.
I believe the main reason I suggested 'separate distribution is an
excuse' here is just that I thought what I was outlining was
potentially unreasonable otherwise -- but because it would go *beyond*
FSF-orthodoxy strong copyleft theory in some circumstances. Maybe that
assumption is wrong though.
- RF