On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
What I found at least temporarily convincing in Mike's comments
first, his saying that what I wrote is incomprehensible (another
design goal is maximal comprehensibility), and second, his hint that
this may be bad policy.
My comment "adding linecount and incomprehensibility" may have been
too strong -- I meant "and reducing comprehensibility". Also, I didn't
mean to hint that the provision is bad policy, but rather ineffective,
with respect to the EPL -- based on my understanding which I guess is
not totally wrong based on your response in
(but I'm happy for my guess to have been merely incomprehensible and
"eliminating some of the rough edges through allowing simple inclusion
of already-quite-open code" as Luis put it is a desirable goal. The
provision does seem effective to me if it addressed the MPL -- there
are cases where unambiguously MPL code could be included in a
copyleft-next project, if only copyleft-next allowed for it.
Maybe it'd be nice to allow inclusion of code under any copyleft
license (that is actually a free software license of course) to the
extent copyleft-next can allow it, in the way the draft had stated for
EPL (not weakening copyleft-next's copyleft, except with respect to
the files included under other copyleft). But it'd only make a
difference for weak copylefts, or future strong copylefts that
explicitly address copyleft-next or general class strong copylefts.