On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso(a)mit.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:40:41PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> It is intended to be strong copyleft. This is a fixed goal.
Just to clarify, when you say strong copyleft, you mean in the GPL vs
LGPL sense, right?
People have been using "stronger" and "weaker" in other senses
whether there are more restrictions, such as the anti-Tivo clause) ---
i.e., GPLv3 is "stronger" than GPLv2, or GPLv2 is "stronger" than
Personally, I don't really like "strong" and "weak" because
rather imprecise, and it doesn't take into account the
multidemensional nature of things; that is, it's not a single
continuum of where certain licenses are "stronger" than others, and
where someone might try to say that the "strongest" copyleft is best;
licenses can't be strictly ordered!
Historically, that has been the case, but given the convergence in
patent termination clauses, notification requirements, and
compatibility, the most recent versions of the major licenses (Apache,
MPL 2, LGPL 3, GPL 3, AGPL 3, but excluding eclipse) actually can be
basically strictly ordered on a copyleft-only basis.