On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
It says "this clause b)" in the latest version in the
gitorious
repository. In case the idea isn't clear, it's quite simple: if you
(or rather 'We' - in fact it has to be the 'original We' to be done
legitimately) do what Bradley calls "proprietary relicensing", that's
fine, but then copyleft-next turns into a non-copyleft license, thus
permitting all licensees to do their own proprietary relicensing if
they so wish.
I have a revised version I haven't pushed that I think makes this a
bit clearer. As a separate paragraph:
The preceding condition shall not apply to Your Derived Work if
We Proprietary-Relicense. "Proprietary-Relicense" means to
commercially offer a work that would be a Covered Work had You
prepared it, under a license that fails to satisfy version
1.111 of the Free Software Definition as published by the Free
Software Foundation ("FSF").
Could you give a bit more background on this clause, Richard? I had
flagged it as "ask Richard what the purpose of this clause is"
(because I didn't understand it) but hadn't had an opportunity to ask.
Luis