On 01/15/2013 01:19 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On 01/15/2013 01:31 PM, Tom Marble wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 12:01 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> [...] So if you imagine [...] (a) copyleft-next being used by actual
>> software projects [...]
>
> For those software developers who are concerned about working
> on proper "open source" projects [0] and/or having their works of
> authorship be license compatible [1] with other "open source" projects
> at some point it may be important to seek a ruling from OSI [2] and FSF
> about the disposition of copyleft-next.
Indeed.
One thought I had about the "chicken and egg" license
approval problem is to use disjunctive licensing.
For example, a new work might be licensed as
"AGPLv3+ | copyleft-next".
In this way a work could be combined with "open source"
works using the already approved license choice while promoting
(and ideally providing upgrade compatibility with future versions of)
copyleft-next.
However I wonder if the disjunction opens up any "escape hatches"?
Currently the only issue that comes to mind is the weakening of the
proprietary relicensing deflation provision. However, that would
only really come into play if a wannabe huckster had aggregated
copyright over the work... If a hacker publishes a work using the
aforementioned disjunction, but does not give any copyright assignment
or license, then it doesn't seem possible for a wannabe huckster to
proprietorize... Does it?
Are there any other downsides to the disjunction (other than
perhaps weakening the strength of copyleft)?
Regards,
--Tom
p.s. Has any thought been made towards an abbreviation
of the license name (e.g. CL, CLN)?