On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Richard Fontana fontana@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.
Luis