<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> You need to rearrange 2 b); at the moment it's unclear what licenses are<br>
> OK because the definition is split into two bits. So:<br>><br>> Distribution of Covered Code incorporating material governed by a<br>> license listed in Appendix A (or an equivalently or comparably<br>> permissive free software/open source license) does not impose further<br>
> restrictions. You have permission to ignore subsection 2c (only) solely<br>> to the extent necessary to comply with such other license.<br>><br>><br>> But I do think the bit in brackets is not specific enough and will cause<br>
> problems.<br><br>What is the rationale for changing the approach to define free/open licenses?<br><br>There are two approaches (that yield precise enough results), as I believe has been mentioned on this list: an enumerated, closed list, and an appeal to authority entities.<br>
<br>In 0.3.0, copyleft-next was using the second. Now it's none of the two: it's an open-ended list (illustrative and non exhaustive), with free wording ("or an equivalently or comparably permissive free software/open license"). If I understand Gerv's concern correctly, I subscribe: this approach is not precise, and introduces a loophole - unless I'm missing something.<br>
<br>Please discuss it before the next version release.</div>