[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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[1], 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.

> [1] 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

Reply to: