[ I just finally got myself properly on this list (forgot to answer the
sub confirmation, and I'm commenting on a few threads. ]
With regard to TGPPL, Zooko and I have discussed it a few times and had a
plan to try and draft it up properly together as a GPLv3 formal additional
permission. Zooko and I haven't gotten together to do it, but I'm still
committed to it.
As one of the "purists" that might be the ones mentioned on the related
thread to this one, I can say that I think such a license of this nature
*should* exist. I think the details actually come down fundamentally,
though, to Ted's point about additional permissions:
The same is true of [any] additional permission.... Anyone can strip
it
out; and that's not necessarily something that the original copyright
holder might not want. ... the child project can always take
contributions made to the parent, and strip out the copyright commit by
commit. Some might argue that this would be an unfair situation; it is
certainly asymmetric.
The ideas that Fontana is experimenting in copyleft-next with regard to
"supplements" might address this, and as he points out elsewhere, it's an
open question whether they'll be auto-compatible or not.
I've always felt the strongest copyleft license on the planet should
always be a universal receiver from all the weaker copylefts. However,
Ted's points about the anti-strongest-possible copyleft crowd disliking
this is a serious issue.
I'd like to point out that the GPL family, pre-v3, always had this. You
could drift from LGPLv2 up to GPLv2 or remove GPLv2 exceptions and put the
code into pure GPLv2 projects. It's only the release of GPLv3 that led to
any rancor about this issue.
-- bkuhn