Luis Rodriguez wrote at 17:19 (EST) on Monday:
I personally see a benefit to evolve copyleft-next slowly to enhance copyleft where GPLv2 left off,
Richard Fontana wrote at 17:59 (EST) on Monday:
For the basic version of copyleft-next, I want users to have the same freedom to install and run that they have under GPLv2. .
My point is that without "install and run", we're moving backwards from GPLv2. GPLv2 requires inclusion of "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" with Source Code.
If you don't have those words in there, it's the equivalent of going to a weaker copyleft -- on the issue of installation of modified versions -- than GPLv2. Does copyleft-next seek to be *weaker* than GPLv2?
I don't really want copyleft-next to be about 'negotiations' and 'compromises'.
Then why develop it publicly it all? Why not write it privately and throw it over the wall for all to use? That's, after all, how GPLv2 was developed, AFAIK. ;)
I intend to follow up with some further thoughts on why I made the 'install and run' deletion.
I suggest that you take merge request in, which will document my reasons why I think it should be there in the git log. Then, when you remove it again, you can put your reasons why you're removing it into the git log.
In between that time, we can discuss whether people actually want it removed.