On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 07:09:27 -0400
Engel Nyst <engel.nyst(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Gervase Markham
<gerv(a)mozilla.org>
wrote:
>
> You need to rearrange 2 b); at the moment it's unclear what
> licenses are OK because the definition is split into two bits. So:
>
> Distribution of Covered Code incorporating material governed by a
> license listed in Appendix A (or an equivalently or comparably
> permissive free software/open source license) does not impose
> further restrictions. You have permission to ignore subsection 2c
> (only) solely to the extent necessary to comply with such other
> license.
>
>
> But I do think the bit in brackets is not specific enough and will
> cause problems.
What is the rationale for changing the approach to define free/open
licenses?
There are two approaches (that yield precise enough results), as I
believe has been mentioned on this list: an enumerated, closed list,
and an appeal to authority entities.
In 0.3.0, copyleft-next was using the second. Now it's none of the
two: it's an open-ended list (illustrative and non exhaustive), with
free wording ("or an equivalently or comparably permissive free
software/open license"). If I understand Gerv's concern correctly, I
subscribe: this approach is not precise, and introduces a loophole -
unless I'm missing something.
I see the point, but doesn't a similar issue exist under the GPL, with
few real problems in practice? The only difference being that the FSF
is playing two roles (that of license-drafter-in-the-past and
[aspirationally] present-day-authority [on what is or isn't a
GPL-compatible license, with the FSF never having purported to provide
an exhaustive list]).
Or is this actually a problem with the GPL that a new copyleft license
should fix?
Richard