Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar <Bram@moolenaar.net>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That is not what the license says. And in any case, this still puts a
> > burden on modifiers to make sure that their modifications will exist
> > SOMEWHERE indefinitely.
> No, as soon as I have received the changes
The point is still that people should be allowed to share modified
versions of free software with their neighbour, never send anything to
anybody, and still be in the clear legally.
> > You don't need a non-free license for that. Simply require that any
> > distribution of modified binaries must *either* be accompanied with
> > full source *or* follow whatever obnoxious rules you see fit to
> > like. Then everybody would be happy.
> Are you saying that when I add the option that a modified version of Vim
> is accompanied by the changed source code, this would make the license
I'm saying that if you add an option such that people can give the
source to the friends they share binaries with instead of giving it to
you, the license would be free. You can make any kind of odd
requirements (including requirements to send you source) from people
who distribute binary-only versions.
Henning Makholm "I Guds Faders namn, och Sonens, och den Helige
Andes! Bevara oss från djävulens verk och från Muhammeds,
den förbannades, illfundigheter! Med dig är det värre än med
någon annan, ty att lyssna till Muhammed är det värsta av allt."