[copyleft-next] copyleft-next 0.2.0 released
Richard Fontana
fontana at sharpeleven.org
Thu Feb 21 15:15:52 UTC 2013
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:59:16AM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> >> Is it considered that there is no need for a system library exception?
> >> Is that because the definition of Derived Work does not cover system
> >> libraries?
> >
> > Sort of. The old system library exception can be seen as built into
> > the definition of 'Separate Work'. At least that was the intention. I
> > am not at all of the view that this definition could not be made
> > better.
>
> Reversing the question, how can we make it clear that it's OK to ship
> Windows binaries of copyleft-next code?
That is a good way of stating the issue. In my experience, these days
that's a common specific circumstance in which thinking about the
system library exception (or some broader understanding of it) comes
up.
> >> * Has consideration been given to combining how section 2 works with how
> >> section 8 works?
> >
> > I haven't thought about that, beyond being aware of the inelegance
> > that I introduced in referring in section 2 to the Apache License
> > (which I did in a recent change because I thought it might make the
> > provision easier to understand -- this was a response to the comments
> > on Martin's article on LWN.net).
>
> I think there's clarity and self-containedness in having a "waive these
> sections" approach rather than a "use this totally different license"
> approach, if for no other reason that you don't have the issue which is
> addressed by the "if you change the license in this way, no additional
> rights are granted" language you now see in some licenses.
Yes.
Maybe the mere change in the section title does a lot to make the
point of the section clearer to the casual reader.
- RF
More information about the copyleft-next
mailing list