On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On 08/08/2012 06:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I'm surprised you're interested in adding linecount and
> incomprehensibility to achieve a low-certainty and small effect. Sort
> of like I said on identi.ca, I don't see the point unless somehow this
> would politically lead to an EPL 2.0 which would join the
> GPL-compatible universe.
I'm convinced. Deleted!
Can I push back? If you're looking to have copyleft-next actually used
(not 100% clear this is a goal :) then eliminating some of the rough
edges through allowing simple inclusion of already-quite-open code in
this manner is a good tactic, with zero downside to user freedom that
I can see, and only a small cost to license complexity. That said, you
could frame it differently; basically, define the criteria you'd like
to see in an inbound license and allow its inclusion.