On 08/16/2012 10:23 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:38:22PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Can you clarify what this means, as OSI does not confirm "successors"
> It rests on an admittedly fanciful assumption that both the FSF and
> the OSI would at least begrudgingly accept the role of deciding
> whether copyleft-next 2.0 was worthy of being a successor to
> copyleft-next 1.0.
This raises the question of whether the FSF approves of copyleft-next
1.0 at all. And/or if the OSI declines to accept that responsibility
altogether, indeed it means "there will never be an 2.0 license".
What I actually had in mind was that there would possibly be a 2.0
license, but if the FSF and/or OSI don't want the unprecedented
responsibility of authorizing a later version as a successor license
(such that the "or-later" built-in clause can be used), it would then
be the same as the situation under the GPL, approximately (ignoring
the GPL clauses that talk about failure to specify any license
version). That is, copyleft-next licensors would have to opt-in to
allow reuse of code under the later version, by saying "copyleft-next
version 1.0 or, at your option, any later version" (or the like). But
I guess my solution may be somewhat silly - as you suggest it is
weaseling out of the problem.
I think I may just change this to a GPLv2-style approach, though I'll
give some thought to the 'proxy' idea too.