On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:22:22PM -0500, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On 20-05-13 06:08, Gervase Markham wrote:
>On 19/05/13 19:03, Stephen Michael Kellat wrote:
>>It is best to note that I have filed two bugs seeking support for copyleft-next
in various places.
>Richard: do you have an opinion on the wisdom or otherwise of people,
>and in particular people not involved in the development process, using
>copyleft-next while it is still in development?
Well, I honestly think the numbered releases (as imperfect as they
unquestionably are) are as suitable for use as any widely-used,
mainstream FLOSS licenses are. And use of any copyleft-next version is
at the user's own risk (cf.
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/raw/master/DISCLA...
). Still:
>I am concerned that having it as a choice in a dropdown in a
hosting
>site will lead to people licensing their code under a licence that
>changes under them, and that they will not understand that they are
>doing so.
I suppose you have a reasonable point; after all, the (relatively)
rapid public development in a 'default or-later' license is something
we haven't seen before.
But I don't think this is a realistic problem to worry about at
present.
I would prefer that copyleft-next at least has a website with some
kind of rationale statement, a list of releases at permanent URLS
and a link to the mailing-list archives -- before any kind of advocacy
of the license takes place.
That is certainly a legitimate request. :)
- RF