3 ms·
Copyleft-next: A new non-weak copyleft license inspired by the GNU GPL
- wiz21c 1y agoRelease date: 2016-04-29
- rapnie 1y agoIt is the copyleft-next project itself that has been restarted: > We excitedly announce that the two of us (Richard and Bradley) have been in discussions [1] for a few months to restart, revitalize, and relaunch copyleft-next! > Today, GPLv3 turns exactly 18 years old. This month, GPLv2 turned 34 years old. These are both great licenses and we love them. Nevertheless, at least once in a generation, FOSS needs a new approach to strong copyleft. https://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/2025q2/000000.html https://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/2025q2/000000.html
- rapnie 1y agoLicense texts formulated by Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana, both of whom were involved with GPLv3 Drafting Committees. > "We learned much from what was done right and (frankly) what was done wrong in drafting GPLv3" Read the full announcement at: https://fedi.copyleft.org/@next/114769761806288554 https://fedi.copyleft.org/@next/114769761806288554
- znpy 1y ago> If the Derived Work includes material licensed under the GPL, You may instead license the Derived Work under the GPL. I don’t think unilaterally changing license is legal. If i include the linux kernel in my derivative work, can i change the kernel license? No wonder this went nowhere.
- detaro 1y agohow would licensing the Derived Work under GPL because you included the GPL-licensed kernel change the kernel license?
- znpy 1y agoI wasn’t referring to the original project, but to what would effectively turn into a fork of the kernel. But i just realised this is a non issue: anything including gpl-licensed software is automatically gpl software itsef as the gpl is a viral license. So the original excerpt is useless.
- detaro 1y agono it is not. It is needed to allow you to license the Derived Work as GPL while including parts under this license.