On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 02:49:30AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote: > > - 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your > > - modifications in a form distinct from the Software. The following > > + 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute them in a > > + form which distinguishes them from the original Software. The following > > restrictions apply to modifications: > > > > # Small wording fix > > Small enough that I'm not sure it helps. I think the people who were having > problems with it before will still not like this, as it still is ambigious as > to what "a form" means. I think they will only be happy with something like: > "...form which distinguishes them from the original Software (for example, as > a patch (the preferred method) OR as source modifications clearly marked as > such)." This makes it clear that "form" does NOT only mean "patch" or imply > only "patch" (I think they want it spelled out just HOW distinct/ distinguished > the mods have to be... a separate patch, or just marked with comments?). I > don't know how to word that the right legal way, but I think that's what they > want to see. THe primary person who was having problems with it that I saw was asked about this, he thought that cleared things up nicely. The problem was the word distinct. > > - c. You ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable > > - forms are available under the terms of this license. > > + c. You ensure that the modifications included in machine-executable > > + forms comply with section 3 of this license. > > > > # Not so small wording fix. 4(c) has been read by a few as ambiguous with > > # section 3(b) being worded as it is. 3(b) is fine though and is nicely > > # worded <EGO>especially since I wrote it</EGO> but if we say explicitly > > # here which terms of the license we want them to follow, we clean it up > > # nicely. (I hope.) > > I wondered about that, it almost looked like it could be used as a loophole to > require that mods be released under the QPL, negating the "if" in 3(b), at > least if you wanted to ship binaries. All clear now :) Such is the intent of the change. => -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Attachment:
pgpc9X_ixedgz.pgp
Description: PGP signature