Today I had a telephone conversation with Bradley Kuhn in which I noted that copyleft-next (vanilla version) was nearly ready for its 0.01 release, the main obstacle being that the definition of "System Library" remains undone. I suggested (though I wasn't quite this specific) that an explicit GPL-style system library carveout from "Corresponding Source" (or from "Derived Work") might not even be necessary.
- RF
(Belated) HBR cure clarification:
Richard Fontana wrote on 18 September:
I suggested (though I wasn't quite this specific) that an explicit GPL-style system library carveout from "Corresponding Source" (or from "Derived Work") might not even be necessary.
You forgot to mention I objected vehemently to that idea.
Today I had a telephone conversation with Bradley Kuhn in which I noted that copyleft-next (vanilla version) was nearly ready for its 0.01 release, the main obstacle being that the definition of "System Library" remains undone.
I also argued it was too soon to release it. :)
On 10/11/2012 07:09 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
(Belated) HBR cure clarification:
Richard Fontana wrote on 18 September:
I suggested (though I wasn't quite this specific) that an explicit GPL-style system library carveout from "Corresponding Source" (or from "Derived Work") might not even be necessary.
You forgot to mention I objected vehemently to that idea.
I didn't remember any objection. I'm curious to know what you think of this aspect of the current draft, since there is no system library exception as such, yet I believe that the same effect is achieved.
- RF
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Bradley M. Kuhn -
Richard Fontana