On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:59:18PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 12:03 Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on whether copyleft-next (presumably the
> most recent numbered release) should be submitted for OSI approval?
If that number is 1.0, I'd say it should start the approval process. If the
number still starts with a zero, getting some feedback on license-discuss
sounds like a good idea.
Or to put it another way: is there anything significant that still needs to
be added or reworked?
Looking at
https://github.com/copyleft-next/copyleft-next, one thing
which really strikes me as missing is the collateral material. The
1.0 release and the OSI approval will cause a lot of people to take a
look. So they'll do a Google search, and find the github
repository.... and not much else. Yes, there are are some interviews
from 2012[1] and 2013[2], but I'd claim that's not enough.
[1]
https://www.datamation.com/open-source/copyleft.next-and-the-future-of-gn...
[2]
https://lwn.net/Articles/537559/
Take it from the perspective of project leader, either for a new or
existing OSS project. There are going to be a couple of things that
such a project leader might ask:
* What makes this license different from all other licenses?
* Why should I consider using the copyleft-next license? What are its
benefits?
* What licenses is this licenses compatible with? Incompatible with?
* How does copy-left-next work in dual-licensing scenarios?
* What are potential pitfalls if I take an existing codebase and covert it to
copyleft-next?
Cheers,
- Ted