[copyleft-next] HBR cure 2013-02-18
Richard Fontana
fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Feb 21 04:38:58 UTC 2013
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:41:49PM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/19/13, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >> So I guess what this means is, if you want to avoid the "infection"
> >> concern, but want strong copyleft, then you need to be very crisp and
> >> perhaps less expansive about what a "Derived Work" is.
> >
> > That seems related to some of the comments Ted Ts'o has sometimes made
> > on this list.
> >
> > I have to admit I've thought about this -- not so much the 'less
> > expansive' part but the 'very crisp' part. I don't know how to do that
> > (yet), beyond what's already been done. Or without adding a *very*
> > long paragraph.
>
>
> Perhaps this is an item for the FAQ or documentation.
That's basically what I'd been assuming all along, I suppose. The FSF
did the same thing with the GPL, but I'm envisioning something better. :)
> I like the idea of explaining it in an FAQ. While FAQs wouldn't be binding in
> an express contract way, but they would show what the practice in the industry
> is, which is probably good enough.
With the GPL, for better or worse, the FSF's FAQ has been remarkably
influential in affecting industry assumptions about GPL interpretation.
- RF
More information about the copyleft-next
mailing list