On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:59:18PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 12:03 Richard Fontana
> Does anyone have an opinion on whether copyleft-next (presumably the
> most recent numbered release) should be submitted for OSI approval?
If that number is 1.0, I'd say it should start the approval process. If the
number still starts with a zero, getting some feedback on license-discuss
sounds like a good idea.
Or to put it another way: is there anything significant that still needs to
be added or reworked?
Looking at https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next
, one thing
which really strikes me as missing is the collateral material. The
1.0 release and the OSI approval will cause a lot of people to take a
look. So they'll do a Google search, and find the github
repository.... and not much else. Yes, there are are some interviews
from 2012 and 2013, but I'd claim that's not enough.
Take it from the perspective of project leader, either for a new or
existing OSS project. There are going to be a couple of things that
such a project leader might ask:
* What makes this license different from all other licenses?
* Why should I consider using the copyleft-next license? What are its
* What licenses is this licenses compatible with? Incompatible with?
* How does copy-left-next work in dual-licensing scenarios?
* What are potential pitfalls if I take an existing codebase and covert it to