Re: three send back changes clauses
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Walter Landry wrote:
>> >; 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 don't agree. This puts a restriction on _users_. This means that
>it can't be used in the NSA, FBI, Los Alamos, typical Silicon Valley
>startups, or any other place that doesn't let people talk about what
>they do. That violates DFSG#6: No Discrimination Against Fields of
>Endeavor.
You're right, though in context, classification is enough to foil "best
effort". Basically, the weasel words come to the rescue again.
>Regards,
>Walter Landry
>landry@physics.utah.edu
>
>
--
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: