[copyleft-next] Platonic ideals, restrictiveness and weaker copyleft (was Re: GPLv2/v3 compatibility?)
Richard Fontana
fontana at sharpeleven.org
Tue Jul 31 01:35:30 UTC 2012
On 07/30/2012 07:26 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>> some found this objectionable on policy grounds, because they didn't
>> like the idea that a downstream licensee could impose a more restrictive
>> license than they themselves had chosen upstream.
>
> So, this is an interesting point on this issue. Is that really why those
> who objected had issue? After all, any weaker copyleft license can allow
> for such restrictions by downstream.
>
> Does your point here relate to what has been called the "copyleft
> perfection theory of GPLv2"?
>
> I think most people who generally like copyleft have a Platonic ideal in
> their minds of what their preferred copyleft license is, and then
> selectively read a given copyleft license to have those properties.
>
> Having lived myself mostly in the reality of seeking compliance for GPLv2,
> but preferring GPLv3, I've had to dissuade myself of my Platonic ideals of
> copyleft and just focus on what the license actually says.
>
> I wonder if copyleft-next can actually address this issue at all. Is its
> goal to be the Platonic ideal of copyleft for everyone?
Assuming I understand what you mean here, no, that is not a goal. I
don't see how it is achievable, because we know that there are
multiple, clashing ideals of copyleft -- at least if we mean strong
copyleft.
At most, in allowing for outbound compatibility with GPLv2+/AGPLv3+, I
believe copyleft-next accommodates the views of those who believe that
one or more of those licenses more closely approximates their own
ideal of what copyleft should mean.
> (Sorry, I hope in advance philosophical debate is appropriate on this
> list.)
I certainly consider such debate appropriate.
- Richard
More information about the copyleft-next
mailing list