On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:59 PM Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via
License-discuss <[email protected]> wrote:
> this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion.
>
I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft". It's being used to
represent copyleft with the addition of various things that copyleft
doesn't mean. For example, it's really clear that the proponents of
copyleft wished to preserve use rights without limitation, and were
certainly not proponents of API copyright. The addition of these things to
copyleft doesn't make it *stronger,* they subvert the mission of copyleft
to be something else entirely.
It would be like labeling an educational-use-only license as "Super Open
Source".
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
