On 10/12/2012 09:54 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote on 9 August:
> The old liberty-or-death provision is now reduced to one sentence in
> the no-further-restrictions section.
After 20 minutes of review, I'm not completely comfortable with this
change yet, and I haven't fully formulated my thoughts as to why. My
general sense is that Further Restrictions were active and the
liberty-or-death clause was designed around passive situations.
Note that the penalty for violating the liberty-or-death clause was
softer than violation. As it stands, the way I read it now, it's
possible for a company to sign an NDA related to copyleft-next'd
software, which immediately causes a violation and if they don't cancel
that NDA in 30 days, then their rights terminate per §10.1.
So, in some sense, you've made the liberty-or-death clause more strict.
OTOH, you've made it less strict, because you're clause seems to indict
you need direct "Foo vs. 'Not Foo'" contradictions between third-party
agreements/judgments and copyleft-next. My feeling is the wording in
GPLv3 that says:
>> If you cannot convey a covered work so as to so as to satisfy
>> simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
>> pertinent obligations, then as a consequence ...
it seems to me that is much more explicit.
I don't have a patch to propose as of yet on this. One thought is to
say: "It is considered a Further Restriction if you Distribute a Covered
Work such that you cannot simultaneously satisfy your obligations under
this license and any other pertinent obligation"
What would help is for you to give an example that you think works
correctly (in your view) under GPLv2/GPLv3 liberty-or-death but
doesn't work correctly under the corresponding clause of
copyleft-next. To the extent that I understand your point, I can't
think of such an example.