On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv(a)mozilla.org> wrote:
You need to rearrange 2 b); at the moment it's unclear what licenses are
OK because the definition is split into two bits. So:
Distribution of Covered Code incorporating material governed by a
license listed in Appendix A (or an equivalently or comparably
permissive free software/open source license) does not impose further
restrictions. You have permission to ignore subsection 2c (only) solely
to the extent necessary to comply with such other license.
But I do think the bit in brackets is not specific enough and will cause
What is the rationale for changing the approach to define free/open
There are two approaches (that yield precise enough results), as I believe
has been mentioned on this list: an enumerated, closed list, and an appeal
to authority entities.
In 0.3.0, copyleft-next was using the second. Now it's none of the two:
it's an open-ended list (illustrative and non exhaustive), with free
wording ("or an equivalently or comparably permissive free software/open
license"). If I understand Gerv's concern correctly, I subscribe: this
approach is not precise, and introduces a loophole - unless I'm missing
Please discuss it before the next version release.