Re: copyleft-next (or a future version of it that you help with), instead of Hacking License? (was Re: Hacking License)
Il December 1, 2018 7:02:23 PM UTC, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> ha scritto:
>I'm curious if you'd looked at copyleft-next
Yes, I followed the work of Fontana for a while (actually way before considering to write the Hacking License).
> and possibly joining its drafting community.
This is a good idea actually, I guess they could share interesting feedbacks.
Note however that outbound GPL compatibility as defined by copyleft-next would defeat the purpose of any copyleft stronger than GPL.
> Some of your copyleft licensing ideas are
>some of them I think are bad copyleft policy.
I'd really appreciate if you could point out these bad copyleft policy explicitly, in particular if they mean that the license would be somehow incompatible with Debian guidelines.
>Rather than drafting a license on your own, maybe you would be willing to
>talk with the copyleft-next community, work with us over there, and perhaps
>improve copyleft-next in ways you can find it to be good enough for
Well... I accept the invite and I will surely join your mailing list.
But the Hacking License is here to stay.
As I said it's part of a bigger project that is outlined in the preamble.
Though, I have to say that one of the reasons I decided to finally publish the license as it is now was reading your article at https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/16/mongodb-copyleft-drafting/
I strongly disagree with the entry-barriers you propose there.
An in depth discussion would be off topic here, but hackers wrote their licenses for decades and while I appreciate GNU licenses, we have to resist to GroupThink and power playing wherever it comes from.
>A lot of the ideas in your license have been discussed for years on
>The mailing list is here:
I gave a look to the archives some months ago but I didn't recall much activity, do you have specific threads to suggest?