copyleft-next July 2014

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

4 participants
3 discussions

EPL 2.0
by Richard Fontana 27 Apr '15

27 Apr '15

It came to my attention earlier this week that the Eclipse Foundation had begun public discussion of the drafting of a new version of the EPL. So far little has been said on the relevant mailing list: https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epl-discuss This caught my attention though: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epl-discuss/msg00013.html as it relates closely to the 'rule vs standard' issue that in the past was discussed here. The suggestion made by Jim Wright is interesting as at a high level it bears some relationship to what I have been thinking about lately for copyleft-next. It starts out with MPL-style copyleft as a conceptual basis and tries to define something more extensive, but (unlike EPL 1.0) attempts to do so by articulating something bright line instead of relying on some legal notion of derivative works. - RF

2 1

Impending release of copyleft-next 0.4.0
by Richard Fontana 27 Aug '14

27 Aug '14

Hi everybody! After a considerable and unfortunate hiatus I have resumed development of copyleft-next and feel it is close to appropriate for release of v.0.4.0. Especially given the dormancy I thought I would point any remaining and interested readers of this list to the latest draft: https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/raw/3baab310f662811ba48d8… The most notable changes are the following: Section 2b: (Non-GPL) license compatibility is now dealt with through reference to a brief illustrative appendix list of licenses (which include MPL 2.0, EPL 1.0, and LGPLv3 as well as some non-copyleft licenses). The issue of compliance with export control regulations is dealt with, something which I have come to view as sorely lacking in the GPL. Section 3: This is a new section containing an attempt at an Affero-style condition. Don't laugh at this attempt without trying it yourself first (though I should disclose that my attempt took place within the space of an hour at most this evening). The inclusion of this condition is notable given that at an earlier stage I specifically had decided not to have an Affero-like condition in the main body of the license. The original licensor can opt out. There is a special 'Corresponding Source' definition here that is not identical to the one for distribution of Object Code. Section 4: The old 'poison pill' provision now includes a definition of 'Proprietary License'. I have eliminated the effort to include an Apache License 2.0 section 5-style mechanism for formalizing the 'inbound=outbound' rule. - RF

5 9

Recording of FOSDEM 2013 [sic] talk on copyleft-next available
by Richard Fontana 09 Jul '14

09 Jul '14

Salutations! The nice folks over at the Free as in Freedom oggcast have now made available a recording of the talk I gave at FOSDEM 2013 [sic] on copyleft-next, which was shortly after the 0.1.0 release. http://faif.us/cast/2014/jul/01/0x48/ At the time I gave the talk I believed it was suboptimal, but listening to it now, I think it's actually pretty good. It makes me want to resume active development (which a while back I thought I was doing, I know). The recording is followed by some interesting commentary by the co-hosts (Karen Sandler and Bradley Kuhn). Towards the end of their discussion, Karen made a good criticism of the harshness of the plank of HBR that says that top-posted replies shall be ignored, as, while well-intended as a method of discouraging lawyer involvement, it is also likely to discourage newcomers or really anyone not coming from old-school developer culture. (I note though that at FOSDEM the room erupted in applause when I mentioned that HBR had such a plank.) So I'll be revising that plank in a way Karen and Bradley suggested on the oggcast. Richard

4 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next July 2014