On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn(a)ebb.org> wrote:
If the
supplement structure of copyleft-next exists
Does it? There's just a document (or two, with your restoration) that
claim to not be further restrictions, with no support in the license
draft. Am I missing something obvious? It seems like such a structural
thing being unclear is good reason to not call a draft 0.01 or
whatever, if there was a point of a
small-version-number-but-do-not-use-this-version otherwise.
My wild guess of what such a structure would look like:
- No further restriction section enumerates ws-supp [and dl-supp if
reinstated] as acceptable restrictions.
- Outbound compatibility says only AGPLv3+ [or, if only dl-supp GPLv3+]
I don't know that I'm really sold on those supplements at all; maybe
people who want them should just use [A]GPLv3+. But, to illustrate my
wild guess above and make a fool of myself:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/22
I'm not sure the supplements are unambiguously identified (including
them in the main license as optional provisions would be most
unambiguous, I guess) or if the complexity is worth it.
I hope to be wholly off base.
Mike