Here's an update of what's been going on with the copyleft-next draft
during the past week:
While Bradley Kuhn's attempted resurrection of the anti-lockdown
provisions has failed, I incorporated some of his suggestions for
improvements in the definition of Corresponding Source (including a
recent change that addresses the 'know-how' issue).
I have put a "FIXME" for the System Libraries definition, as, to be
frank, all definitions of this exception in all versions of the GNU
GPL are suboptimal and if we wish to preserve this concept at all we
need to start over. (Query whether it's actually needed anyway.)
I deleted the 'rule of construction' in response to some criticism
from Luis Villa, but I might restore it in response to some of his
further comments on said deletion.
I deleted the "inbound=outbound" provision adapted from the Apache
License 2.0. I think this is difficult to draft *well* and may not be
worth the effort. In many cases, contributions to a hypothetical
copyleft-next project will be themselves 'Derived Works', and I have
argued publicly in various talks and writings that FLOSS legal culture
features the inbound=outbound custom anyway.
The patent license grant is arguably broadened from GPLv3 by referring
to 'Covered Works', although perhaps this is best seen as a
clarification. In this I was influenced by the patent license grant in
the Microsoft Public License.
I considered and discussed on the mailing list a provision that would
attempt to achieve compatibility with EPL. I ended up not including
this, though I am still open to the idea.
The anti-anti-circumvention waiver/disclaimer is clarified as
something that the initial licensor and all 'Distributors' make. At
least with the deletion of the first part of what was GPLv3 section 3,
it was not clear that the initial licensor was making the same
waiver/disclaimer as downstream parties.
I applied Luis Villa's proposal to delete the written offer option
from the object code distribution section. No one came to its defense
on the mailing list. It is gone!
In the past few days I've been experimenting, probably too much, with
rearranging sections and subsections and typographical presentation
I deleted the anti-patent-litigation condition descended from the end
of GPLv3 section 10 and replaced it with a provision closely modeled
on the patent peace provision in MPL 2.0 (and put it in the
termination section). I did so despite having some concerns about the
breadth of the MPL provision.
The old liberty-or-death provision is now reduced to one sentence in
the no-further-restrictions section.
I removed the ancient clarification that you can charge for
distribution or services, as hopefully obvious by now.
Apart from the draft, I made some modifications to the Harvey Birdman
Rule (as it is again known).
copyleft-next (ignoring ws-supp) continues to shrink: it is now at 270
lines and 1620 words. Of course, that's with the placeholder System
Libraries definition.For comparison, the Apache License 2.0 is 202
lines and 1581 words.
The Object Code Distribution section makes up about one quarter of