On 10/13/2012 03:29 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
I'm not sure the supplements are unambiguously identified
them in the main license as optional provisions would be most
unambiguous, I guess) or if the complexity is worth it.
Maybe having license variants with the supplement(s) included would be
better, easier to understand (this is somewhat related to the
relatively recent thread started by Luis Villa on the idea of a
noncopyleft version of copyleft-next).
Since neither I nor anyone else has yet devoted any real attention to
the drafting of the supplement(s), it may not matter too much at this