On 07/30/2012 07:28 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote:
the actual license notice, which Bradley and I came up with, said this:
This notice constitutes a grant of such permission as is necessary to combine or link this software, or a modified version of it, with Request Tracker (RT), published by Jesse Vincent and Best Practical Solutions, LLC, or a derivative work of RT, and to copy, modify, and distribute the resulting work. RT is licensed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License.
*At the time* I considered this clever.
I still consider it clever, in the sense that it punts all decisions of license compatibility between GPLv2 and AGPLv3 for the specific circumstance to a Court. I still wonder sometimes if additional permissions of that nature might be the future of cross-copyleft compatibility.
Maybe they are the only way to explicitly resolve historical cross-copyleft incompatibilities (in practice they seem to be resolved implicitly in many cases). I've become more skeptical of the value of additional permissions (or 'exceptions' as they were called in the pre-GPLv3 era) because of the complexity cost they add to a given licensing situation.
With respect to the license of stet, I am reminded of Michael Meeks' reference to the possible need for an "ALGPL" (I forget the precise term he used) in his talk at FOSDEM. A suitable integral weak copyleft variety of AGPL presumably could have been applied to stet such that the clever notice wouldn't have been necessary. (I'm not sure if the notice even *was* necessary, but I don't remember much about how stet and RT fit together.)
- Richard