On 12/03/2012 03:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
TL;DR: Fontana, please accept the merge request at
to restore the "install and run" wording until such time as
community consensus is reached regarding a compromise of which
users should actually get the freedom to install modified
I'm sorry to see that Richard has removed it at Luis' behest
discussion about the issue.
I didn't remove it at Luis's behest - he never suggested that it be
removed (AFAICR). I'd be happy to have further discussion about the issue.
> I've now taken out "install and run" from the
> Corresponding Source.
The right to install and run modified versions is *the* essential
freedom that copyleft must now defend, especially with embedded systems.
GPLv3 made compromises of various sorts of this regard. However, it's a
mistake for copyleft-next to "start" the negotiation point as "users
have no freedom to install and run modified versions".
For the basic version of copyleft-next, I want users to have the same
freedom to install and run that they have under GPLv2. That's why I
had the (now-deleted) "dl-supp" file. (Yes, I realize there isn't
universal agreement on the scope of such freedom, so let us suppose
that there is a majority view on what that means.)
Therefore, I've submitted a merge request to revert this change.
accept it. If Luis and those who oppose the freedom to install and run
modified versions want to propose a compromise position -- as was done
by the same powers-that-be during GPLv3 -- they should propose a
compromise that allows the freedom to install modified versions some but
not all of the time, as GPLv3 does. Then we can consider the compromise
as a community.
I don't really want copyleft-next to be about 'negotiations' and
Please accept my merge request to revert the change that was made
without real discussion, and then let Luis propose a patch for a
I agree that there wasn't as much discussion about this as there could
have been. I intend to follow up with some further thoughts on why I
made the 'install and run' deletion.