on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause.
> I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep
> doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation.
Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please act like
professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. I know it's
difficult but I've seen people lose perfectly valid arguments on the basis
of over-reaction to personality rather than debate. And you'll get quoted on
news sites.
> ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs.
>...
> The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code
> that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or
> organisation using it.
Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) Apple's distribution clause is
extroadinary in its legalese not its intent, and IMHO robustness and clarity
of licenses is good.
- Rob.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
