Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d > after an hour or two's thought. > > The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather > than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting > errors. By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative > works, it causes endless trouble. Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a > restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license. > > So here it is: > "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to > have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and > receive copies of the work."
If all you are trying to do is make the clause more palatable, then I agree that this is an improvement. But I still think it is not free. Please define "user". In particular, consider these mails http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00856.html Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
