Re: three send back changes clauses
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:56:45PM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
>
> Please cc me on any replies. I'm not currently subscribed to this
> list.
>
> I've got three send back changes clauses. Comments on whether they
> are free?
>
Clauses that request a user send changes back upstream are OK. Clauses that
_require_ a user send changes back upstream are not. In particular, the
latter shows a disregard for the privacy of the end user, and violates DFSG
#5 (by discriminating against people other than the upstream) and #3 (by
placing onerous restrictions on creating derived works).
In this particular case, the first and third clauses are not OK because they
add requirements, while the second clause is merely a request and is
permitted.
> ; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
> ; return to me any improvements or extensions that they make, so that
> ; these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform me of
> ; noteworthy uses of this software.
>
> ; I also request that you send me a copy of any improvements that you
> ; make to this software so that they may be incorporated within it to
> ; the benefit of the Scheme community.
>
> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
> ;;; return to the MIT Scheme project any improvements or extensions
> ;;; that they make, so that these may be included in future releases;
> ;;; and (b) to inform MIT of noteworthy uses of this software.
>
> Thanks
> Jim
>
> --
> @James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org> | Blessed Be!
> @ http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com | Linux is kewl!
> @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Brian Ristuccia
brian@ristuccia.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu
Reply to: