[copyleft-next] copyleft-next 0.2.0 released

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Feb 21 04:56:46 UTC 2013


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:30:16PM -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >                    copyleft-next [-0.1.1-] {+0.2.0+} ("this License")
> >                          Release date: [-2013-02-08-] {+2013-02-19+}
> >
> > 1. License [-Grants.-] {+Grants+}
> 
> Not a change, but does the word "License" add anything here?

Not really. Maybe marginal clarity? I'm always on the lookout for
deleting words.

> >    This License does not {+grant any rights in My name, trademarks, service
> >    marks, or logos.
> 
> Not a substantial change, but I wonder why the substance is needed.
> The grant is explicitly one of copyright. Lots of popular FLOSS
> licenses don't mention trademark.

That is true. As I think I noted on identica, I was influenced here by
past discussions (not about this license, but FLOSS generally) with
Pam Chestek. If she sees this, maybe she'd be willing to provide a
better justification than I can (for why, say, the GPL might be better
off with this kind of clause as a built-in provision - GPLv3
explicitly authorizes such a clause as an 'additional requirement'),
though I note that I'm solely to blame for putting this provision
in. It was actually one of the first things I added when working from
the GPLv3 text, as I recall.

> >    This License does not+} exclude or limit any rights You have under
> >    applicable [-copyright-] law.
> 
> This seems like either superfluous (better for a FAQ), or bad policy.
> Are the contours of contemporary copyright exceptions really the right
> ones for software freedom? If one might be forced to comply with terms
> (ie releasing under copyleft-next and revealing source) even if they
> might be able to get away with it due to some copyright exception,
> might it not be a bad idea to explicitly eliminate the possibility?

Although I liked the generalization I'm now thinking of deleting it
for 0.2.1 (more because it's probably mostly superfluous and seems
ultimately to be the product of an early 21st century Zeitgeist).

I think I'll have to weigh what you've just said against what Pam said
a few days ago in response to something Luis said.
 
> >    {+You may additionally license the Derived Work under any version of the
> >    GNU General Public License published by the Free Software Foundation
> >    ("GPL"), so that the recipient may further distribute the Derived Work
> >    under either this License or the GPL.
> 
> I agree with comment elsewhere that I can't find now that v2+ would be
> good to specify.

Yes, that seems to make good sense. 
 
- RF



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list