Re: three send back changes clauses
On 24 May 2001, 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?
All three sound DFSG free, since you use the weasel words "best efforts".
The big issue that I've seen hereabouts is that the usual send back changes
clause made it mandatory to send to a place that may cease to exist before
the expiration of copyright. With your "best efforts" modifiers, if the
places they need to send changes don't exist, they made their best effort
and failed, NP.
>; 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.
The B section here really is outside the bounds of a copying license. It
doesn't make it non-free, just adds a trivial requirement that would be
better phrased as a request.
>; 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.
This one is the "most" free, but probably least does what I see your
intentions as.
>;;; 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.
I have the same issue with B here.
>Thanks
>Jim
>
>
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: