On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn@ebb.org wrote:
TL;DR: Fontana, please accept the merge request at https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/25 to restore the "install and run" wording until such time as community consensus is reached regarding a compromise of which users should actually get the freedom to install modified versions.
On 11/27/2012 10:46 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
My understanding of the functional requirement of Sec. 9(ii) was that it required the *ability* to install, not merely a description of how it might be done:
"all scripts, instructions and information known to you necessary for a skilled developer to build, compile, generate, modify, install and run the Covered Work."
I understand that Luis' clients, who aren't friendly to the rights of users to install modified versions of software, would want this removed. I'm sorry to see that Richard has removed it at Luis' behest without any discussion about the issue.
I've now taken out "install and run" from the definition of Corresponding Source.
The right to install and run modified versions is *the* essential freedom that copyleft must now defend, especially with embedded systems.
GPLv3 made compromises of various sorts of this regard. However, it's a mistake for copyleft-next to "start" the negotiation point as "users have no freedom to install and run modified versions".
Evolutions on free software licensing helps us address concrete philosophical freedoms we have become aware of that we have and therefore need new amendments on a contract to help us protect these freedoms. Because of these evolutionary changes, however, whether we like it or not business models take off with certain assumptions on certain licenses. It would be only fair then to ensure that older licensing documents can benefit from evolutions on licensing that do not affect assumed pivotal freedoms / assumptions businesses can make. The alternative is to leave old licenses with ambiguity, which is where perhaps some may believe GPLv2 was at regarding this particular clause. I personally see a benefit to evolve copyleft-next slowly to enhance copyleft where GPLv2 left off, and at very specific points in time help tack on new evolutions that do incorporate new philosophical rights we want to embrace. This would allow us to evolve software licensing as we want it but at the same time allow businesses to understand the different freedoms/contract requirement concretely.
Where and what applies to copy-left next then and at what point is a matter of mission statement. My hope was that copyleft-next could help us align the evolutions necessary for licensing in an orderly fashion that evolves slowly as the philosophical elements are ironed out in considerations for current practices and how we can help evolve those practices.
Luis