>> On the other hand, this provision, either your wording or mine, might >> conflict with the following provision in the OSL: >> >> 5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" >> means the use or distribution of the Original Work or >> Derivative Works in any way such that the Original >> Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or used by >> anyone other than You,
> I want the terms to be interpreted to mean that private use and > private modifications may never, under any circumstances, be > restricted. I'm fine with the idea that letting other people use code > you have modified is distribution of a derived work. I agree with Russ on this one point, and this one point only. In fact, I have modified the Simplified Artistic License to include the statement that packages which are edited for private use by an individual or company that is not distributed do not need to indicate their changes in the file. I do however believe that this "proposed change" needs to be much more clear on this point. The way you have it worded now, Russ, you are basically trying to block any license that wants to maintain some semblance of artistic control. That change would invalidate A LOT of licenses. And personally, I don't think it's fair. Also: To "James E. Harrell, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I understand your feelings. I have felt the same wrath from this group that you have, but remember, some of the people here are really great, and very honorable, like Nathan Kelly, and not all of us feel the same as Russ and some his cronies. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
