On 05/18/2013 07:24 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
The point of this change in copyleft-next is that, if, say, rtslib
had
been under copyleft-next (and had escaped the nullification of
proprietary/copyleft dual licensing provision somehow [1]), then some
downstream noncopyleft (or proprietary) endeavor should not need to
worry about the mere use of an external library as in itself having a
copyleft effect on the immediate work in question -- unless the
licensor of the copyleft-next library says something explicit to make
clear that this is intended (in which case it still is not a foregone
conclusion that the dependency relationship gives rise to some
copyleft effect).
Isn't it contradictory with section 3, first paragraph?
This condition may not be avoided through such means as separate
Distribution of portions of the Derived Work.
For reference, the comment to this commit[1] is saying that the licensor
should include a statement like "Any code that imports bar, and which
otherwise meets the definition of 'Derived Work' of bar in
copyleft-next, shall be considered a Derived Work of bar even if such
code is not distributed with bar."
It seems to me that the above phrase of section 3 is no longer making
any effect, or perhaps it had a different intention than to avoid
(ab)using separate packaging to bypass the license.
I understand that it's work in progress, just to note that it seems
inconsistent at the moment, unless I'm misunderstanding it.
[1]
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/commit/c21519e0d71d3429...