Re: three send back changes clauses
> Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole
> > clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do
> > that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back
> > changes, that is enough to foil "best effort". What if it is my wife?
> > What about the voices I hear in my head? I still think that the
> > package can't go in main.
> I think (IIRC) that we've distributed older MIT Scheme releases, which
> have just those terms.
> It's fine to put arbitrary "please" requests into the license; if the
> request cannot be enforced, then it doesn't violate the DFSG.
That is the difference between a "request" and a "requirement". This
particular license is not phrased as a request, but as a requirement.