On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso(a)mit.edu> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:37:58AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0
>
> or, if I wanted to preclude use of 'Later Versions' without permission,
>
> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0.
I'd suggest using something which is a bit more obvious than the
presence or absence of a period. Something which is more explicit,
such as the presence or absence "(or later)" is less likely to be
missed, or accidentally deleted while editing a source file.
I suggest
License: copyleft-next 0.1.0-only
This would help people write about the license in sentences using
precisely the same language as used in notices.
(But I wish the -only feature weren't in the license at all. At least
requiring unambiguous selection and notice of the feature is a
tremendous improvement over GPLv1/2/3. I think EUPL 1.1 may have been
first license like this "this Licence or of a later version of this
Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under
this version of the Licence" -- but I wonder if it is slightly
stronger than copyleft-next-0.1.0 is, not allowing "-only" to be added
by an adaptation.
Also EUPL 1.2
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUPL%20v1.2%20-%20Draft%2...
may end up being first to facilitate backwards compatibility, in the
draft EUPL 1.1 is one of the compatible licenses.).
Mike