I got a question regarding this commit:
Author: Richard Fontana <fontana2012(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue Nov 20 10:52:53 2012 -0500
Clarify language of section 5 (Distributing Derived Works)
diff --git a/Drafts/copyleft-next b/Drafts/copyleft-next
index 88addc2..e10119f 100644
@@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ THIS IS A DRAFT. DO NOT USE AS A LICENSE.
5. Distributing Derived Works.
- You may Distribute a Derived Work, provided that you license the
- entire Derived Work under this License, and include prominent
- notice of such licensing. This condition may not be avoided through
- such means as separate Distribution.
+ If you Distribute a Derived Work, you must license the entire
+ Derived Work as a whole under this License, with prominent notice
+ of such licensing. This condition may not be avoided through such
+ means as separate Distribution of portions of the Derived Work.
6. Direct Licensing.
Today's v0.3.0 added the GPL option too, so today's paragraph 3 reads:
3. Conditions for Distributing Derived Works; Outbound GPL Compatibility
If You Distribute a Derived Work, You must license the entire Derived
Work as a whole under this License, with prominent notice of such
licensing. This condition may not be avoided through such means as
separate Distribution of portions of the Derived Work. You may
additionally license the Derived Work under the GPL, so that the
recipient may further Distribute the Derived Work under either this
License or the GPL.
The GPL allows for GPL-compatible work to be integrated into it. In a
larger GPL project this allows for example say a group that wants to
share code with the BSD family to license code under a permissive
GPL-compatible license, and then through usage of things like the DCO
maintain it under a permissive license. Then portions that are
copyleft could be extracted by the BSD folks and they could go live
happy in their permissive license world.
Does the above paragraph prevent this type of sharing ? If so does the
option to re-license to GPL allow for it?
Show replies by date