On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@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
> problems.

What is the rationale for changing the approach to define free/open licenses?

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 something.

Please discuss it before the next version release.