Re: Would this comply with DFSG?
Henning Makholm writes:
> I tought that "you must <vague description>, e.g. <clear description>"
> would be an unambiguous and definite indication that any action that
> matches the second description is guaranteed to match the first one.
>From your license:
> making an honest attempt at communicating your
> modifications to [us], e.g., by sending them by
> email [...]
Since I have no idea what might constitute "an honest attempt at
communicating" in your mind, I must assume that email is the only method
sure to satisfy you. Why not, then, just say "You must send your
modifications to us by email"? If there are other acceptable means of
communication, list them. Then finish up with a catchall clause such as
"or any other mutually acceptable means of communication".
Of course, the license will still not be free.
> If the two scenarios are as identical as you assert,...
I made no such assertion. I merely implied that they would provide
equivalent protection for your work.
> why are you so vehemently opposing one in favor of the other?
One involves releasing your program under a free license. The other does
not. If you can achieve your goals with a free license, why not do so?
> Consider some malicious organization grapping the source and starting to
> throw programmer hours at improving it. We're doing improvements too, but
> the villains subscribe to our announcement list (we are the good guys)
> and incorporate our improvements as fast as we can release them. OTOH we
> may be ignorant of *their* improvements until we accidentally stumble
> across them months later and are eventually able to persuade someone to
> leak them to us.
> Word will spread that the software offered by the villains is generally
> more stable and feature-rich than the one we can offer.
You still have not explained what villainous thing these villains are
email@example.com (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill