On 06/22/2013 06:31 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
This is a strange idea, but it is a kind of stronger copyleft than
exists under MPL-like licenses.
If I may try to rephrase this. As a copyleft-next licensor, I'd say by
the license:
"This software is free software. You can count on its guarantees of
freedom, no matter in what shape you receive it or from where. You can
use it from or combine it with files under any open/free license, and
open licenses alone. You can use it from Apache licensed or BSD files;
and yeah, you can also take those separately and make them proprietary.
Fine. But if you do the latter, you're not doing it in this project. And
you're not doing it *with* this software or any part of it, together in
some meaningful package."
I don't think this is the message sent by MPL. I think it is stronger.
Perhaps the paragraph above doesn't make sense as a license. I don't
know. It makes sense to me, as project policy, as actual and/or intended
practice. I've even had a few attempts to play with the license text for
something like this.
Thank you for considering this approach, personally I am very glad to
see it.