On 10/13/2012 03:29 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn
> If the
> supplement structure of copyleft-next exists
Does it? There's just a document (or two, with your restoration) that
claim to not be further restrictions, with no support in the license
draft. Am I missing something obvious? It seems like such a structural
thing being unclear is good reason to not call a draft 0.01 or
whatever, if there was a point of a
My wild guess of what such a structure would look like:
- No further restriction section enumerates ws-supp [and dl-supp if
reinstated] as acceptable restrictions.
- Outbound compatibility says only AGPLv3+ [or, if only dl-supp
Now that I've looked at your merge request, I think you may have
misunderstood what I was intending. The idea was that the initial
copyleft-next licensor could include the supplement, in which case it
would normally govern the initial work and all downstream Derived
Works. Cf. GPLv2 section 8. It's not like a GPLv3 section 7 allowed
I don't know that I'm really sold on those supplements at
people who want them should just use [A]GPLv3+. But, to illustrate my
wild guess above and make a fool of myself:
I'm not sure the supplements are unambiguously identified (including
them in the main license as optional provisions would be most
unambiguous, I guess) or if the complexity is worth it.
I hope to be wholly off base.
I'm thinking of deleting "ws-supp" (and not accepting bkuhn's merge
request to restore "dl-supp"). I still very much want there to be a
separate/supplementary "AGPL-ish" version of copyleft-next, but I
think we need to start from scratch with the language, so there isn't
much to be gained by using AGPLv3 section 13 language as a placeholder
for the time being.