On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/13, Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> So I guess what this means is, if you want to avoid the "infection"
>> concern, but want strong copyleft, then you need to be very crisp and
>> perhaps less expansive about what a "Derived Work" is.
> That seems related to some of the comments Ted Ts'o has sometimes made
> on this list.
> I have to admit I've thought about this -- not so much the 'less
> expansive' part but the 'very crisp' part. I don't know how to do that
> (yet), beyond what's already been done. Or without adding a *very*
> long paragraph.

Perhaps this is an item for the FAQ or documentation. If it becomes explicit
and understandable enough as FAQ item, its introduction in the license may
be easier (unless it will be useless, but proving that for sure is also a small

I like the idea of explaining it in an FAQ. While FAQs wouldn't be binding in an express contract way, but they would show what the practice in the industry is, which is probably good enough.