> Additionally, code contributions prior to the raising of an objection, should be exempted from forced source code disclosures. Sorry, but this is a retarded

> Additionally, code contributions prior to the raising of an objection, should be exempted from forced source code disclosures. Sorry, but this is a retarded proposal. Courts take a hell of a lot of time to rule, and considering the usual software release cycles, it means you are allowing virtually unrestrained usage of the GPL'd software. The HP case should be better handled, but you are providing a loophole "ops, debug build" for everything. You need to be careful there. The better definition of dynamic/static linking is something needed, personally I'd like to have a modular concept here similar to the CC license, where the developer decides which is allowed. I'm also fine with the tivoization clause, but again, make it modular. With some projects it is not an issue, while others might want to give control to the user, as in "the user must be able to alter the installed software under this license", or similar. I want only one new feature, though (modular, as well): deterministic builds. I want to easily check that someone is using my software without non-approved/released modifications. With this it would become only a matter of publicizing the build environment.