On 06/25/2013 07:40 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44:17AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Might there be those who are keen to see copyleft-next continue with the
> current approach? Are there enough of them that what we really have here
> are two different -nexts?
I am interested in the answer to that question.
FWIW, I entirely welcome the approach suggested by the latest email threads.
If I understand copyleft as roughly akin to "requires to practically
(re)license the additions (to MPL scope) under the same license", then
it weakens the copyleft scope. At least when starting off with a MPL-ish
boundary (which perhaps is only the start). But I feel the scope of the
license is not the same with the copyleft scope: the license covers far
more. In a sense more than GPL even, by adding to the scope by default
non-derivatives under submissions of contributions clause. And for the
entire scope of the license, it sends a clear message that it is and it
stays open source.
(well, with the exception of 'for a fee' currently in proprietary
relicensing provision IIRC.)
Perhaps my reading is incorrect (please correct it if you see fit). If
it is remotely correct, then I personally feel it's a very worthwhile
direction to explore. And missing, in the current free licenses that I'm
aware of.