Richard Fontana wrote on 9 August:
The old liberty-or-death provision is now reduced to one sentence in
the no-further-restrictions section.
After 20 minutes of review, I'm not completely comfortable with this
change yet, and I haven't fully formulated my thoughts as to why. My
general sense is that Further Restrictions were active and the
liberty-or-death clause was designed around passive situations.
Note that the penalty for violating the liberty-or-death clause was
softer than violation. As it stands, the way I read it now, it's
possible for a company to sign an NDA related to copyleft-next'd
software, which immediately causes a violation and if they don't cancel
that NDA in 30 days, then their rights terminate per §10.1.
So, in some sense, you've made the liberty-or-death clause more strict.
OTOH, you've made it less strict, because you're clause seems to indict
you need direct "Foo vs. 'Not Foo'" contradictions between third-party
agreements/judgments and copyleft-next. My feeling is the wording in
GPLv3 that says:
> If you cannot convey a covered work so as to so as to satisfy
> simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
> pertinent obligations, then as a consequence ...
it seems to me that is much more explicit.
I don't have a patch to propose as of yet on this. One thought is to
say: "It is considered a Further Restriction if you Distribute a Covered
Work such that you cannot simultaneously satisfy your obligations under
this license and any other pertinent obligation".
I'm not 100% sure that's necessary, but it might be.