On 01/26/2013 02:11 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Theodore Ts'o
<tytso(a)mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:37:58AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>
>> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0
>>
>> or, if I wanted to preclude use of 'Later Versions' without permission,
>>
>> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0.
>
> I'd suggest using something which is a bit more obvious than the
> presence or absence of a period. Something which is more explicit,
> such as the presence or absence "(or later)" is less likely to be
> missed, or accidentally deleted while editing a source file.
I suggest
License: copyleft-next 0.1.0-only
This would help people write about the license in sentences using
precisely the same language as used in notices.
(But I wish the -only feature weren't in the license at all. At least
requiring unambiguous selection and notice of the feature is a
tremendous improvement over GPLv1/2/3. I think EUPL 1.1 may have been
first license like this "this Licence or of a later version of this
Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under
this version of the Licence" -- but I wonder if it is slightly
stronger than copyleft-next-0.1.0 is, not allowing "-only" to be added
by an adaptation.
Also EUPL 1.2
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUPL%20v1.2%20-%20Draft%2...
may end up being first to facilitate backwards compatibility, in the
draft EUPL 1.1 is one of the compatible licenses.).
Interesting. I seem to remember backwards compatibility being briefly
discussed at a late stage in *GPLv3 drafting, I believe because of the
concerns that were then being raised about GPLv2-only/LGPLv3
incompatibility. I'll look more closely at the EUPL when I get a
chance. (I'm interested more generally in studying EUPL for possible
internationalization benefits.)
I suppose there could be problems with backwards compatibility. A lot
of GPL license compatibility theory (at least the theory I've
developed in my head) seems to be based on theoretical downstream
resolvability to GPLv3. I'll have to think about that.
- RF