Luis Rodriguez wrote at 17:19 (EST) on Monday:
I personally see a benefit to evolve copyleft-next slowly to
copyleft where GPLv2 left off,
Richard Fontana wrote at 17:59 (EST) on Monday:
> For the basic version of copyleft-next, I want users to have the
> freedom to install and run that they have under GPLv2. .
My point is that without "install and run", we're moving backwards from
GPLv2. GPLv2 requires inclusion of "scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable" with Source Code.
If you don't have those words in there, it's the equivalent of going to
a weaker copyleft -- on the issue of installation of modified
versions -- than GPLv2. Does copyleft-next seek to be *weaker* than
> I don't really want copyleft-next to be about
Then why develop it publicly it all? Why not write it privately and
throw it over the wall for all to use? That's, after all, how GPLv2 was
developed, AFAIK. ;)
> I intend to follow up with some further thoughts on why I made
> 'install and run' deletion.
I suggest that you take merge request in, which will document my reasons
why I think it should be there in the git log. Then, when you remove it
again, you can put your reasons why you're removing it into the git log.
In between that time, we can discuss whether people actually want it