On 02/24/2014 12:23 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
After a considerable and unfortunate hiatus I have resumed
of copyleft-next and feel it is close to appropriate for release of
In addition to Gerv's Nits...
Could you explain the rationale for changing from referring to "My Work"
to "My Code"? Is this an explicit attempt to the narrow the scope to
software (vs. other artifacts like artwork, documentation, etc.)?
(Non-GPL) license compatibility is now dealt with...
"You have permission to ignore subsection 2c solely to the extent
necessary to comply with such other license"
Does this solve the gridlock from typical license text language which says,
effectively, "you may combine other code as long as the combined work is licensed
under THIS license"?
For example if an EPL-1.0 work is combined with a copyleft-next work
can the result be combined such that the EPL-1.0 governs only
the first part and copyleft-next the latter part -- unless such
a separation is infeasible. If the code is mixed would the fused
work need to be licensed solely under EPL-1.0 or would some or all
of the copyleft-next restrictions also apply?
Is elaborating a list of Code build dependencies be
included in the intent of 2.d.iii?
+ Each recipient of Covered Code from You is an intended third-party
+ beneficiary of this License solely as to this subsection 2d, with the
+ right to enforce its terms.
Is there any way this idea could expand to give users
"standing" in the copyright license? Does the above language
accomplish this goal?
This is a new section containing an attempt at an Affero-style
Does this mean that previously signaled intent to create
"copyleft-next-ns" has been folded into the current
draft of copyleft-next?
Is there a "verbatim" loophole? If My Code is simply hosted
on a network as is without any changes does §3 no longer apply?
The use of "NSS" is unfortunate as it clashes with
How does this provision of copyleft-next differ from
this FSF interpretation of the AGPLv3?
"If some program on this server is released under the GNU Affero GPL,
the server is required to offer the users the corresponding source of
that program. That is good, but having this source code does not give
them control over the computing done on that server. It also does not
tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining
or changing their data in other ways."
Is there an advantage in referring the plain text version of this license?
Does OSI offer plain text versions of approved licenses?
Apparently the simplest the Eclipse Foundation can
imagine is "plain HTML":
Thanks for the awesome work on copyleft-next!