On 10/12/2012 09:25 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
I believe we're going to continue to fight about the question of
anti-lock-down is a primary feature of copyleft-next. However, it seems
to me a needlessly contentious act to delete the *supplement*. If the
supplement structure of copyleft-next exists, then the two supplements
that must be officially recommended are the (a) network services clause
and (b) anti-lock-down clause.
I therefore insist that the anti-lock-down supplement be reverted.
Please accept this merge request:
I recently decided to delete the other 'supplement', the one that
incorporates language from AGPLv3 section 13. Ironically, perhaps,
this deletion reflects my belief that there must be an AGPL-ish flavor
of copyleft-next. In order to achieve that successfully we have to
start over from scratch rather than be influenced by the existing
language of AGPLv3 section 13. (It's not impossible that we'll end up
with very similar language.)
That being so, it stands to reason that the anti-lockdown supplement
should also stay deleted, without even getting into the policy issue
being raised by bkuhn. I'd rather focus on further refinement of base
copyleft-next, beginning to think about what an AGPL-ish version of
copyleft-next would look like, and only then considering the issue of
whether there ought to be an anti-lockdown variant.
Therefore I have rejected bkuhn's merge request. It is so ordered!