FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next

That's right; it doesn't. It is meant to be a strong disincentive to
use copyleft-next for copyleft/proprietary dual-licensing (by
nullifying its whole basis, which is monopolization of the
proprietization right), and to confine such conduct to other licenses.

> It just means if some project does eventually decide to go open
> core, their further contributions will no longer be compatible with
> other CN projects, only GPL ones. That seems to hurt only those who
> use CN "in good faith" as their license.

That's an interesting argument. The effect of this provision would
(let us assume) be to drive such a project (or to be more precise, the
business or entrepreneur behind it) to other licenses, these days most
likely the GPL or AGPL. So you're arguing that this is just a loss for
a copyleft-next code commons because it will be deprived of some
ability to use this open core code that might otherwise be under
copyleft-next.

First, such open core code will remain available for use by
copyleft-next projects provided it is a 'Separate Work' (outside the
scope of copyleft).

Second, assuming the open core project uses GPLv2/GPLv3/AGPLv3, such
open core code will be usable *inside the scope* of copyleft-next
works, with the theoretical effect being that the larger work will be
under GPLv2 or GPLv3 or some mixture of GPLv3/AGPLv3. This need not
have the effect of taking the *copyleft-next* code out of the
copyleft-next commons, so it doesn't seem like a huge loss. After all,
this nature of code combination occurs precisely because copyleft-next
is designed to be outbound-compatible with the GPL.

So I think your argument reduces to the argument that this provision
would have the effect of keeping the universe of copyleft-next
projects smaller. To me, this is *possible*, but it seems unlikely to
be meaningful unless copyleft-next becomes significantly popular
(which would be great but admittedly is not the case at the moment
:). And if it did become popular, I would see it as all the more
important to have this provision in, to prevent the 'gaming' of
copyleft-next that we've seen with other copyleft licenses.

In short, I'd rather have the copyleft-next universe be smaller and
limited to 'good-faith' projects, with the problematic conduct
confined to existing copyleft licenses like GPL/AGPL, than have the
copyleft-next universe be larger.