copyleft-next April 2016

copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org

4 participants
4 discussions

github.com/copyleft-next
by Richard Fontana 02 May '16

02 May '16

Since the gitoriousocalypse the de facto centralized source repository for copyleft-next has been github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next. For some time the organization github.com/copyleft-next has existed as well functioning as a mirror of the former repository. I am going to attempt to treat the latter repository as the authoritative source repository. On a related note, I've been experimenting a bit with Docker containers for certain free software source code hosting systems such as Kallithea, with some hopeful results. Richard

4 7

HBR cure
by Richard Fontana 30 Apr '16

30 Apr '16

I attempted to cure a Harvey Birdman Rule violation in a git commit message, but re-reading HBR now, I am not sure that is really compliant with the spirit, and possibly the letter, of HBR. The pertinent plank 3 of HBR says: "Except in extraordinary cases, private telephone calls, private teleconferences, private in-person meetings, and private email communications shall not be used to discuss substantive development of this project. Should such private communications nevertheless occur, participants in such communications are expected to publish summaries of any relevant discussions in a manner or medium accessible to the general net public." So here is the commit message: Clarify third-party beneficiary sentence HBR CURE: Winston Lloyd pointed out to me in an email conversation that the 'downstream' language was ambiguous. Richard

2 1

copyleft-next 0.3.1 released
by Richard Fontana 30 Apr '16

30 Apr '16

Good news, everyone! copyleft-next 0.3.1 has been released: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/v0.3.1/Releas… This version clears up some language around GPL compatibility, inbound license compatibility, and the proprietary relicensing poison pill and copyleft sunset provisions. Richard

2 4

Copyleft-next 0.3.0 GPLv2 compatibility and lay summary of benefits
by Luis R. Rodriguez 29 Apr '16

29 Apr '16

I'm interested in helping evolve copyleft licensing, its one reason why I really like copyleft-next license. My own primary interest in helping evolve copyleft is I believe the current patent situation does a huge disservice to copyleft developers, in the worst case creating an environment where you are outlawed. To start, I decided to use copyleft-next for one of my projects, CRDA [0] about 3 years ago after it became clear, despite my best efforts in helping to share, that the BSD community had no interest in taking advantage of the regulatory framework we had created on Linux. I decided to use copyleft-next 0.3.0 once I learned that it was both a usable alternative to GPLv2 and GPLv3, and also outbound-compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3. I feel we need to evolve copyleft *slowly* with the community, to do this I feel now's a good time to seek a bit more clarity on GPLv2's compatibility and clarifications over its gains over GPLv2 and what the implications are of using copyleft-next 0.3.0 more broadly for GPLv2 projects. To that end can someone provide: * A lay review of copyleft-next 0.3.0's GPLv2 compatibility. Is there anything that is obvious that makes it GPLv2 compatible ? If so what is is? Is there anything that makes it questionable if it is GPLv2 compatible? If so what is is? * A lay review (perhaps a series of bullets) of what the main advantages of copyleft-next 0.3.0 are over GPLv2 Perhaps we can also work though an example. For instance, since CRDA is already copyleft-next 0.3.0 licensed, say I wanted to include code from it on a larger overall GPLv2 licensed code base, what are the implications if I did that to the larger GPLv2 licensed body of code? Would just the GPLv2 apply only on the larger body of code? This would be an important criteria for me to help evolve copyleft slowly. If this works as I expect it, then I take it the gains of doing this would be that I can help evolve copyleft by ensuring I can take back changes made in the larger GPLv2 code back to CRDA under copyleft-next 0.3.0. It still begs the question of *why* use copyleft-next 0.3.0. Other than helping move the discussion forward of copyleft evolution I think having a clear lay review of the net gains of copyleft-next 0.3.0 would be extremely useful. [0] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/crda.git/ Luis

2 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

copyleft-next April 2016