On 01/26/2013 03:10 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
if copyleft-next accepts FSF policy as essentially correct[1] how
will copyleft-next avoid creating similar perceptions? Simply by not being
formally FSF-affiliated, or...?
Yes, possibly, though I wasn't thinking this at first (and I still can
imagine a utopia where the FSF decides to adopt copyleft-next 1.0.0 as
GNU GPLv4 :-).
I guess I could go into this at more length, but I think there are
historical reasons (not all of which I understand) for why multiple
overlapping clouds of understanding of what the GPL means
(particularly as to the key copyleft scope issue) have developed, some
of which are clearly overbroad from the FSF's perspective. Those
historical reasons have something to do with the waxing and waning
social influences of the FSF during various times in its history.
To be clear, I'm not arguing here for repudiation of FSF's
policy, which I
agree is by-and-large correct, just that if (1) FSF's policy creates a
perception problem and (2) copyleft-next follows that policy then (3) how
does copyleft-next plan to usefully differentiate itself from any
perception problems caused by FSF's policies? Merely better branding, or
some other substantive change (i.e., in governance, or policy for
post-release interpretation, or...?)
Post-release interpretation is something I have indeed thought about
(inspired by the examples not only of the FSF with the GPL but other
license stewards that have provided interpretive FAQs and such).
It is clear that interpretation (of some persuasive nature)
post-release is necesary. This is largely how the various notions of
what GPL copyleft means developed.
I do not envision (at least in the longer term) stating something like
"if you want to understand copyleft-next, go read the FSF's FAQ on
interpreting the GPL". I do envision saying that (as to the copyleft
scope issue) copyleft-next is not intended to lead to results that
would differ from the results achieved under a "correct" reading of
the GPL. In fact, I've just said it. :)
I'm not sure how to address the matter with governance apart from not
having copyleft-next be an effort dominated by the FSF, which is
already the case (note: I would love to have the active participation
of persons affiliated with the FSF [hi Josh, hi {in seven months when
he reads this} Bradley!] [subject of course to the requirements of the
Harvey Birdman Rule, etc.], but sadly I don't currently see that
happening).
- RF