On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote
(however, copyleft-next today
cannot reasonably be considered a derivative work of the GNU GPL).
Now that's an interesting philosophical point. I'll agree that the
current draft of copyleft-next bears little resemblance to the GPL,
but given that it started with the GPL text, is it not eternally a
derivative work? Is there some threshold where a derivative work stops
being such? This seems to have legal implications as well. Making
changes in the open, as copyleft-next has done, shows a pretty clear
progression from the upstream work to the current version. If Richard
had kept copyleft-next a secret until today, it would be difficult for
anyone to assume that this is a derivative work. It happens in this
case, that the derivative work is in keeping with the letter and
spirit of the original work's license. But what about the case of some
hypothetical work that violates the original work's license (for
example by not distributing the source)? If I were to start from the
code of the Linux kernel, edit it in secret such that it no longer
resembles the original in form or functionality, and then release
binaries, would my work still be considered a derivative work?
(I apologize for the irrelevant diversion. This email is all that
stands between me and the paper I'm supposed to be writing)
I
have generally wanted the license to be easy enough to understand and
apply that no preamble is necessary. However, I think a FAQ of some
sort is essential.
One thing that I think would be helpful is a plain language guide to
when use of copyleft-next is appropriate, perhaps also including
comparison to other copyleft licenses. Though perhaps that rises to
the point of a standalone "Picking a Copyleft LIcense for Dummies"
guide.
--
Ben Cotton