> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It seems like you're interpreting the weasel words to make the whole > > clause have no practical effect. I don't think that we can really do > > that. You're saying that if my boss tells me not to contribute back > > changes, that is enough to foil "best effort". What if it is my wife? > > What about the voices I hear in my head? I still think that the > > package can't go in main. > > I think (IIRC) that we've distributed older MIT Scheme releases, which > have just those terms. > > It's fine to put arbitrary "please" requests into the license; if the > request cannot be enforced, then it doesn't violate the DFSG.
That is the difference between a "request" and a "requirement". This particular license is not phrased as a request, but as a requirement. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
