On 08/03/2012 01:08 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On 08/03/2012 11:14 AM, Stephen Michael Kellat wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 10:37 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> Stephen Michael Kellat wrote at 19:44 (EDT) on Thursday:
>>> Would it be possible for somebody to please make a concise yet succinct
>>> restatement of where the development of copyleft-next stands as if the
>>> reader of the statement is approaching the subject matter of this
>>> project for the first time, what our currently understood endpoint goal
>>> resembles at this time, and what the top five issues we're currently
>>> discussing are?
>> It sounds like Stephen is asking for a mission statement of
>> copyleft-next. I think it's a good idea, but Fontana is probably the
>> only one qualified to write it.
> I'm not looking for that yet, Bradley. A couple of Richard's previous
> summations have been helpful in understanding where things are heading
> in terms of significant changes being made. A roll-up of such into a
> single statement as to here's where we stand since an arbitrary starting
> point would be nice.
Where development of copyleft-next stands:
The (A)GPLv3 license text has been subjected to substantial
transformation in an effort to increase simplicity and
comprehensibility, to add some legal normalization and baroqueness
reduction, and to eliminate elements that are now arguably
ineffective, unimportant, or counterproductive, all the while
maintaining the original policy vision RMS had for copyleft. This
process will continue. There are a couple of provisions that are new
that I am having some trouble drafting satisfactorily. They are not
really essential to the license.
Top 5 issues we're currently discussing:
I'm not sure about the top 5, but we've been having some recent
discussions (coinciding with the much-anticipated arrival of Bradley)
on broader philosophical/policy issues, as well as some specific
issues like termination policy and (as of today) whether the
'anti-Tivoization' provisions (which had already been moved out of the
main license text by me) should be deleted (as I've done, though Luis
Rodriguez proposed it first) or actually *strengthened* (as Bradley
has proposed in a merge request today).
- RF