On 01/26/2013 01:42 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:37:58AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0
>
> or, if I wanted to preclude use of 'Later Versions' without permission,
>
> License: copyleft-next 0.1.0.
I'd suggest using something which is a bit more obvious than the
presence or absence of a period. Something which is more explicit,
such as the presence or absence "(or later)" is less likely to be
missed, or accidentally deleted while editing a source file.
The inclusion of the period in the 'preclusion of or-later' suggestion
was not meant to be meaningful - it was only a punctuation consequence
of following it with a paragraph containing the adaptation of Linus's
preliminary note in the Linux kernel COPYING file. (It was a
semi-joking suggestion, but I think the Linux kernel notice is
remarkably clear about how "or-later" is rejected unless there is some
indication to the contrary.)
Anyway, this goes to the policy question of what to do about or-later.
The three known approaches are
1) GPL approach: a) if no designation of a numbered version, any
version can be used (note in some situations this can be unclear); b)
if 'or later' is designated, any later version can be used; c)
otherwise you have to use the designated numbered version. The
non-clarity I refer to was probably what Linus picked up on when
deciding to put the caveat in the kernel COPYING file.
2) Typical approach of other OSI-approved licenses addressing later
versions (MPL, EPL etc.): everyone has permission to use a later
version, built in to the license text.
3) current copyleft-next approach: Default is 2), unless you make
clear that no permission to use later versions is granted.
Given that 3) *could* change, it may be a good idea to recommend some
standardized language for those who don't wish to give blanket
permission to use later versions (not necessarily the language I
suggested earlier).
- RF