<p>Den 21 nov 2012 10:10 skrev "Richard Fontana" <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org" target="_blank">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Should the first release of copyleft-next be designated with the<br>
> version number 1.0, 0.1, 0.01, something else?<br>
><br>
> I'm somewhat inclined to go with "0.01" (which still is suggestive of<br>
> 'likely to see further improvement'). Incidentally, I am increasingly<br>
> of the view that the version stability of (at least interesting) FLOSS<br>
> (and free or quasi-free content) licenses is a flaw, and I am<br>
> envisioning copyleft-next as a license that could rapidly evolve even<br>
> when one only considers a series of official numbered releases.</p><p>Please do no use 0.01.<br></p>
<p>Regardless of issues such as the applicability and mapping of "stable API", "added feature", "bug fix" etc to a license text, I do think that <a href="http://semver.org/" target="_blank">http://semver.org/</a> summarizes well today's general expectations of a version number.</p>
<p>In particular, points are not decimal points, they are separators between non-negative integers, such that 0.10.0 > 0.2.0.</p>
<p>So, please do not use 0.01; 0.0.0 or 0.1.0 is better.</p>
<p>This is my strong opinion on the color of this particular wall of the bike shed.</p>
<p>-- <br>
/c</p>