[copyleft-next] comments on 0.1.1
Tom Marble
tmarble at info9.net
Fri Feb 8 22:40:12 UTC 2013
All:
Upon review of a recent release (0.1.1) I am wondering the following:
1. Will there be a FAQ?
If there were a "place" to put explanations it may facilitate concision.
There is precedent with the FSF FAQ's.
BFDL mentions a FAQ in slide 22 (see question 8 below).
2. Is the rationale for design decisions captured explicitly?
The mailing list has provided a great deal of clarification
regarding goals, approaches and thinking. However searching
the mailing list for thinking on a specific point may
be difficult. Is there a convention, for example,
that changesets should document the rationale for
changes on the affected lines? Short of having
a good memory on the "oral tradition" of the license
evolution would commit messages or any other approach
answer the question "what is the point *that* phrase?"
or "why did the BFDL choose this solution among alternates?"?
3. Why list in §10 specific license compatibility?
In fact this is is more license *morphing* than compatibility.
If, for example, copyleft-next is intended to plug
loopholes of AGPL then does not §11 preserve such
loopholes (through morphing)?
4. Is copyleft-next compatible with the EPL?
This question is a troll.
5. Compliance freshness date encourages prompt remedies?
Is the goal of §11.a to encourage coming in to compliance
quickly else requiring You to negotiate a new license with Us?
In other words downloading a new copy of the "Covered Work"
does not reset the clock on a terminated license?
6. Does the definition of "Corresponding Source" combined with §7
effectively form an anti-lockdown provision?
A Product shipping with Corresponding Source yet not runnable
by rebuilding the Source (due to, for example, the lack of a certain
cryptographic signature) would withhold freedom #1.
It is not obvious that the interpretation of copyleft-next
could simultaneously support lockdown and qualify
as a Free Software license by supporting all four freedoms.
Certain developers may believe there is a solution in
explicitly allowing key replacement
(such that private key material need not be disclosed).
7. What triggers derivation vs. aggregation?
For the purpose of understanding the applicability of §5
is there a "bright line" test to distinguish aggregation?
For example, if Object Code from the Covered Work is
linked with a Separate Work is the result a Derived Work?
Or if Object Code operates in conjunction with a Separate Work
over a network connection is the result a Mere Aggregation?
8. Based on the FOSDEM presentation
https://fosdem.org/2013/schedule/event/copyleft_next/
is the choice of a Hyena as a mascot an allusion
to the unfortunate occurrence of tribal infighting (cannibalism?)
in Free Software communities (first mentioned in a blog
post long ago by Mark Shuttleworth)?
9. Proprietary relicensing deflation loophole
Why offer a loophole of one year in §3 before
deflation kicks in?
10. Getting to 201 lines
All the metrics of copyleft-next are currently meeting
objectives, except for line count. How can we best
get down to 201 lines? Do we really need decorations
for §13 and §14? That may be acceptable if it is
an alternative for SCREAMING in all caps. Perhaps
limiting decorations to the margins would eliminate
8 lines?
11. Will copyleft-next* (i.e. copyleft-next or copyleft-next-ns)
be silent on data or try to incorporate the spirit of the
Franklin Street Statement?
Regards,
--Tom
More information about the copyleft-next
mailing list