A first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
release of binary-only. Inspired by Ted T'so's TPL[0] proposal.

[0] http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/TPL.html
A first attempt to come up with a supplement to allow the temporary
release of binary-only. Inspired by Ted Ts'o's TPL[0] proposal.

[0] http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/TPL.html
Merge branch 'master' of gitorious.org:~funnelfiasco/copyleft-next/funnelfiascos-copyleft-next
Clear up a potential ambiguity pointed out by mtjm in IRC
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'
Update wording to reflect changes made upstream.
Update wording
Correct the section number
Merge remote-tracking branch 'copyleft-next/master'

Conflicts:
	license-drafts/dl-supp
	license-drafts/ws-supp
Merge branch 'master' of git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next

Conflicts:
	license-drafts/ws-supp
This no longer exists upstream. Remove.
Standardized the formatting per mailing list discussion.

* Text width set to 74
* Indentation standardized
* Use of newlines changed in a few places to match the formatting of the
    rest of the document.
Revised Severability provision following list discussion initiated by tieguy.
Rewrite 11.4 following list discussion (2012-11-26).
Modify sec. 12: "the Received Work" -> "We".

This change is intended to clarify that in any instance of licensing
permission to 'relicense' under later versions is coming from the
relevant licensor.

I don't think this change would break anything, because, given a
Received Work, all the upstream 'We's' need not to explicitly remove
permission to relicense in order for 'you' to have such permission.
Fix some whitespace/typographical/formatting inconsistencies.
Modify Corresponding Source definition, mainly to delete 'install and run'.

See:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2012-November/000276.html
The concern expressed here is that "install and run" could be read as
an anti-lockdown requirement. Note that those verbs are used in
GPLv3's Corresponding Source definition, yet GPLv3 explicitly limits
the Installation Information requirements to 'User Products'.

Perhaps there is an alternative change that would keep 'install and
run' but add the clarification that this does not imply a GPLv3-style
anti-lockdown Installation Information requirement.
Adjust line lengths in copyleft-next file.
Made 'No Further Restrictions' section more concise.

The main goal here was to eliminate the use of the 'Further
Restrictions' defined term.
Get rid of scare quotes in No Further Restrictions paragraph 2.