On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:30:16PM -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> copyleft-next [-0.1.1-] {+0.2.0+} ("this
License")
> Release date: [-2013-02-08-] {+2013-02-19+}
>
> 1. License [-Grants.-] {+Grants+}
Not a change, but does the word "License" add anything here?
Not really. Maybe marginal clarity? I'm always on the lookout for
deleting words.
> This License does not {+grant any rights in My name,
trademarks, service
> marks, or logos.
Not a substantial change, but I wonder why the substance is needed.
The grant is explicitly one of copyright. Lots of popular FLOSS
licenses don't mention trademark.
That is true. As I think I noted on identica, I was influenced here by
past discussions (not about this license, but FLOSS generally) with
Pam Chestek. If she sees this, maybe she'd be willing to provide a
better justification than I can (for why, say, the GPL might be better
off with this kind of clause as a built-in provision - GPLv3
explicitly authorizes such a clause as an 'additional requirement'),
though I note that I'm solely to blame for putting this provision
in. It was actually one of the first things I added when working from
the GPLv3 text, as I recall.
> This License does not+} exclude or limit any rights You have
under
> applicable [-copyright-] law.
This seems like either superfluous (better for a FAQ), or bad policy.
Are the contours of contemporary copyright exceptions really the right
ones for software freedom? If one might be forced to comply with terms
(ie releasing under copyleft-next and revealing source) even if they
might be able to get away with it due to some copyright exception,
might it not be a bad idea to explicitly eliminate the possibility?
Although I liked the generalization I'm now thinking of deleting it
for 0.2.1 (more because it's probably mostly superfluous and seems
ultimately to be the product of an early 21st century Zeitgeist).
I think I'll have to weigh what you've just said against what Pam said
a few days ago in response to something Luis said.
> {+You may additionally license the Derived Work under any
version of the
> GNU General Public License published by the Free Software Foundation
> ("GPL"), so that the recipient may further distribute the Derived Work
> under either this License or the GPL.
I agree with comment elsewhere that I can't find now that v2+ would be
good to specify.
Yes, that seems to make good sense.
- RF