[copyleft-next] Compatibility with Eclipse Public License.

Mike Linksvayer ml at gondwanaland.com
Thu Aug 9 02:28:00 UTC 2012


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> What I found at least temporarily convincing in Mike's comments was,
> first, his saying that what I wrote is incomprehensible (another
> design goal is maximal comprehensibility), and second, his hint that
> this may be bad policy.

My comment "adding linecount and incomprehensibility" may have been
too strong -- I meant "and reducing comprehensibility". Also, I didn't
mean to hint that the provision is bad policy, but rather ineffective,
with respect to the EPL -- based on my understanding which I guess is
not totally wrong based on your response in
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-August/000127.html
(but I'm happy for my guess to have been merely incomprehensible and
totally wrong).

"eliminating some of the rough edges through allowing simple inclusion
of already-quite-open code" as Luis put it is a desirable goal. The
provision does seem effective to me if it addressed the MPL -- there
are cases where unambiguously MPL code could be included in a
copyleft-next project, if only copyleft-next allowed for it.

Maybe it'd be nice to allow inclusion of code under any copyleft
license (that is actually a free software license of course) to the
extent copyleft-next can allow it, in the way the draft had stated for
EPL (not weakening copyleft-next's copyleft, except with respect to
the files included under other copyleft). But it'd only make a
difference for weak copylefts, or future strong copylefts that
explicitly address copyleft-next or general class strong copylefts.

Mike


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list