Please add info on non GPL copyleft licenses

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Richard Fontana wrote at 19:30 (EST) on Friday:
> The reality is that most interest in copyleft wrt software focuses on
> the GPL family, and in the aggregate non-GPL-family copyleft usage is
> relatively small, though significant enough to be notable (and
> conspicuously missing if absent) in a text on copyleft.

I agree.  I am not likely to change my position that GPL and CC-BY-SA
are the dominate copyleft licenses by far.  As a GPL aficionado, I admit
to finding non-GPL licenses annoying when they are GPL-incompatible, and
I'm thankful for work done on for MPLv2.0 compatibility with GPL.  Other
GPL-incompatible copylefts are frankly somewhat of an annoyance.

That said, I want to see anything that can legitimately be called a
copyleft covered in the text of the Guide, and I really want the
patches.  As I said in my last post, I just don't have the expertise on
those copylefts to write text.  What I'm willing to help with is
restructuring the Guide so that there's an obvious spot for such text.


> I wonder then whether there should be an explicit focus on the GPL
> family,

There's so much implicit focus right now in the Guide on GPL family
anyway, I think it's fine to leave it that way.  I don't want to be
exclusionary, which an explicit focus wuold be.

> It's also worth noting that the known history of enforcement of
> non-GPL-family copyleft licenses is essentially nonexistent, as it
> were.

Yes, indeed.  I've *never* heard a *single* enforcement story of a
software copyleft license that wasn't from the GPL family.  That said,
again, I'd welcome an enforcement case study or additions to the
compliance guide for any copyleft license.

> Such discussions would be covered under HBR were copyleft.org to adopt
> HBR. :)

I expect to respond on that thread later today.
-- 
   -- bkuhn