On 12/04/2012 08:45 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote on 14 October:
> Anyone who cares strongly about the inclusion of the
> clause, at this stage, is someone largely content with GPLv3 (or, say,
> someone who believes that GPLv2 already effectively implements
I don't think GPLv3 is good on this issue. It's been
lawyers. We need anti-lock-down provision in copyleft-next that's more
tenable. And we shouldn't start from "no right to 'install and run'
modified versions whatsoever" which is where the master branch stands at
Not true. There is a legal right to install and run (in fact,
copyleft-next goes further than GPLv2 or GPLv3 with respect to this,
arguably). The question is, what should the definition of
Corresponding Source be, and should there additionally be a
requirement to provide 'Installation Information' if that is thought
of as something separate from 'Corresponding Source' (as in the GPLv3
Also, my point remains: current master branch of copyleft-next does
to defend the freedom of installing modified versions than even GPLv2 does
on its *weakest* possible reading!
That is not intentional. There may be some value in adapting part of
the GPLv2 'corresponding source code' definition. I will look into that.
> By contrast, I think there are some who are supportive or
> supportive of the policy behind the network services clause who are
> *not* entirely content with AGPLv3.
Agreed. But what if one supports both? What license is there for them?
Is there really any developer out there, in a position to use GPLv3 or
AGPLv3 as a license, who really cares about both? That's not a
rhetorical question; I'd be curious to ask someone like Chris Webber, say.