Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So here it is:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right;
the
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting
errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative
works, it causes endless trouble.
That
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and
receive copies of the work.
This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using work based on the
Program to re-use that
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d
after an hour or two's thought.
The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather
than ends, which we have diagnosed
On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...}
What do other people think of this?
I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now compatible.
The OSI approval (I just pray that
7 matches
Mail list logo
