[copyleft-next] Update 2012-09-08
ml at gondwanaland.com
Sun Sep 9 22:57:54 UTC 2012
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> I added a clarification to the GPLv2-ish 'Later License Versions'
> section to the effect that mere inclusion of a copy of "this"
> particular version of copyleft-next does not signify restriction to a
> particular license version for purposes of that section. This resolves
> an ambiguity that occasionally arises in GPL practice. If some code
> has a COPYING file containing GPLv2, but no other statement about
> license versions, is the author limiting downstream use (let's assume
> we know what that means) to GPLv2 or is this instead a case of what
> GPLv2 means by "the Program ... not specify[ing] a version number of
> this License"? copyleft-next says it's the latter: i.e., if the author
> wants to restrict downstream recipients to v1.0, the author must say
> so in some way more explicit than merely including a copy of
> copyleft-next v1.0. (That could be something quite minimal, like
> separately saying "Licensed under copyleft-next v1.0.")
How does this work in conjunction with
> Finally, I have adopted MPL 2.0's approach in relaxing the requirement
> to include a copy of the license text to "inform[ing] recipients how
> they an obtain a copy". This was motivated by some recent discussion
> on the OSI license-discuss list, and also by a conversation I had at
> LinuxCon about a related issue.
which I take to be inclusive of the mechanism of providing a link to a
copy of the license. Let's say a human reading the link sees a version
number, eg copyleft-next.tld/copyleft-next-1.0
Hopefully that would not be enough to permit v1 only, just as
providing a copy of v1 would not be enough to permit v1 only, assuming
current language, assuming v1 of copyleft-next, etc.
I would prefer or later versions to be the default, with "only"
needing to be specified. Maybe this could be expressed with fewer
words, something like
diff --git a/Drafts/copyleft-next b/Drafts/copyleft-next
index b720b2f..14fa86d 100644
@@ -196,12 +196,10 @@ THIS IS A DRAFT. DO NOT USE AS A LICENSE.
The Copyleft-Next Project may publish new versions of
copyleft-next, designated by a distinguishing version number. If
- the Received Work explicitly grants you the option of Distributing
- Covered Works under later published versions of copyleft-next, or
- if it does not specify a version number at all, then you may
- Distribute Covered Works under any later version of
- copyleft-next. Mere inclusion of this license document is not
- specification of a version number.
+ the Received Work does not explicitly remove the option of
+ Distributing Covered Works under later published versions of
+ copyleft-next then you may Distribute Covered Works under any
+ later version of copyleft-next.
12. No Warranty.
Speaking of later versions, isn't GPLv3 bullet in outbound
compatibility section redundant, given GPLv2 and later versions of
foregoing bullets? I see MPL2 doesn't list GPLv3 separately as a
> I removed the reference to the Open Source Definition in the
> Proprietary-Relicensing section, because (to the extent I ever did) I
> no longer consider the Open Source Definition to be a useful
> definition of open source (a point I explained in my talk at LinuxCon).
+1 to requests for the goods.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat
<skellat at fastmail.net> wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 10:17 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> Finally, I have adopted MPL 2.0's approach in relaxing the requirement
>> to include a copy of the license text to "inform[ing] recipients how
>> they an obtain a copy". This was motivated by some recent discussion
>> on the OSI license-discuss list, and also by a conversation I had at
>> LinuxCon about a related issue.
> If possible, could this external discussion be summarized? I would
> strongly prefer to include the entire license text in an accessible
> fashion. Creative Commons deeds, when the HTML snippets generated by
> their chooser tool, provide much the same access to license text in lieu
> of providing a copy. See, for example:
> http://lisnews.org/listen_an_lisnewsorg_program_episode_210 &
I don't have a non-silly summary (silly summary: thread participant
exits recursively) but I suppose
is the most relevant message here.
More information about the copyleft-next