[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-licensing
Subject: Re: QPL v.91
From: Joseph Carter <knghtbrd () debian ! org>
Date: 1998-12-04 20:21:57
[Download RAW message or body]
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 02:49:30AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > - 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> > - modifications in a form distinct from the Software. The following
> > + 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute them in a
> > + form which distinguishes them from the original Software. The following
> > restrictions apply to modifications:
> >
> > # Small wording fix
>
> Small enough that I'm not sure it helps. I think the people who were having
> problems with it before will still not like this, as it still is ambigious as
> to what "a form" means. I think they will only be happy with something like:
> "...form which distinguishes them from the original Software (for example, as
> a patch (the preferred method) OR as source modifications clearly marked as
> such)." This makes it clear that "form" does NOT only mean "patch" or imply
> only "patch" (I think they want it spelled out just HOW distinct/ distinguished
> the mods have to be... a separate patch, or just marked with comments?). I
> don't know how to word that the right legal way, but I think that's what they
> want to see.
THe primary person who was having problems with it that I saw was asked
about this, he thought that cleared things up nicely. The problem was the
word distinct.
> > - c. You ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable
> > - forms are available under the terms of this license.
> > + c. You ensure that the modifications included in machine-executable
> > + forms comply with section 3 of this license.
> >
> > # Not so small wording fix. 4(c) has been read by a few as ambiguous with
> > # section 3(b) being worded as it is. 3(b) is fine though and is nicely
> > # worded <EGO>especially since I wrote it</EGO> but if we say explicitly
> > # here which terms of the license we want them to follow, we clean it up
> > # nicely. (I hope.)
>
> I wondered about that, it almost looked like it could be used as a loophole to
> require that mods be released under the QPL, negating the "if" in 3(b), at
> least if you wanted to ship binaries. All clear now :)
Such is the intent of the change. =>
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic