On 19/05/13 05:02, Richard Fontana wrote:
* In an important change, all licenses that are both OSI-approved
and
classified by the FSF as 'free' (as of the release date) are deemed
inbound-compatible with copyleft-next,
The FSF license list <
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>
does not guarantee completeness:
"We try to list the most commonly encountered free software license on
this page, but cannot list them all"
The OSI list, on the other hand, is complete in the sense that it's a
list of all the licenses which have successfully completed the OSI process.
Is that a problem in practice?
provided that distribution of
a Covered Work incorporating code from the non-copyleft-next license
does not violate the latter license. I wonder whether this should go
even further, but this certainly expands the set of licenses that
are copyleft-next-compatible beyond those that are
GPL-compatible. For example, and connecting this to a thread from
several months ago, I would now assume that EPL code is
copyleft-next-compatible, whereas EPL remains GPL-incompatible under
orthodox doctrine.
If you have _outbound_ GPL compatibility, which you do, doesn't this
raise a bit of a problem?
I take some code under the EPL and put it in a copyleft-next project.
Someone else takes my project and "converts" to GPL. However, they can't
do that because of the EPL code originally included. So they need to be
warned that they can't do that, even though the license says they can.
Is this a problem? I think it is...
Gerv