On 07/07/2016 07:33 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I'm going to go with including the license version number on the
header of the
file following the logic that 0.3.1 has made compatibility even clearer, despite
the built-in license upgradeability. So this looks like this:
* Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof(a)kernel.org>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the copyleft-next >= 0.3.1 license as published
* online and available at the following URL:
*
*
http://copyleft-next.org/
If this is used though I would hope that this doesn't dilute or create
confusion regarding the built-in license upgradeability feature. To that
end it may be logical to document the recommendation (if the above is
agreeable) to avoid silly issues creeping up in the future. Thoughts?
Sure, that seems like a good approach. I suppose it may be preferable to
have the recommendation in the license document itself (like GPLv2,
GPLv3 and the Apache License.
I don't think it matters too much but here's altered phrasing:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of copyleft-next (version 0.3.1 or later) as published
at
http://copyleft-next.org/.
Thoughts on that? It's just stylistic issues.
Richard