On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 06:19:50PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Since both of the words "request" and "condition" appear to apply to > the clause, it is ambigously phrase and Debian would take the > conservative position that the license is not free. > > The situation changes if you can get the author to issue a license > clarification that makes it unambigous that the license is intended > to *legally* allow distribution of modifications that have not been > passed back to the author. (The author will still be at liberty to > think bad of modifiers who do not pass patches upwards).
This license came up a couple months ago, with the same response: "get a clarification" (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00114.html). It never happened, apparently. PortAudio is still in main with this license, packaged with Audacity. This is another example of problems caused by modifying well-established licenses--this is the Expat license, modified in an ambiguous way. -- Glenn Maynard
