"Akil Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Article 7 is basically meant to ensure that the authors of the framework > are notified when it is used (i.e. placed into a production system > either modified or not). Again, the goal is the sharing of information. > Perhaps the following would be better: > > 7. Milestone must be notified when this product is placed into a > production system (either modified or not). Such notification can be > made by visiting www.techMilestone.com and filling out the appropriate > online form. If you have any questions about this process, please send > an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Better?
I don't think it is better. Notifying a specific entity requires that the entity exists. This may not be the case in 10 years, or next week (which is not an insult, just a statement of the risk that an adopter will recognize.) Secondly, requiring a specific method of notification requires that the method is available. This could allow the licensor to control who can use the method, which is a clear OSD violation. For community philosophy on this point, you can read what Bruce Perens et al. wrote about the APSL 1.0 clause 2.2(c) at. http://perens.com/Articles/APSL.html As you can see in the APSL version 1.2, clause 2.2(c) does not have the same problem. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3