Re: PHPNuke license
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:51PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Indeed, in the current version, it is *perfectly clear* that mere
> > modification triggers (2)(a) and (2)(c). If it did not, why would
> > (2)(b) specifically mention distribution?
> Even if it's agreed that the current language restricts modifications
> that aren't distributed, it's far from clear whether this was the
> intent, or that it's useful. What's the point? It seems like a restriction
> that has no benefit to freedom at all. Why do I need to date changes
> for a program I'm not distributing?
> Of course, if I make changes and don't date them, I might have trouble
> later on if I change my mind and want to distribute them; but that'd be
> my own fault. The license certainly can't protect me from my own laziness.
The intent is actually to protect downstream people from your mistakes.
Consider: person A at corporation X changes something in program P,
then quits, and then person B prepares P for distribution, without
knowledge of when A made what changes. If the changes are noted when
they're made, this can't happen.
>  The fact that there's active debate over this should be proof enough that
> it's not "perfectly clear". Why not get an official position on this, don
> the sombrero and settle it, so we can at least stop debating the wording?
OK, I've asked upstream. Waiting for a response.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson