On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode 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." > > This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it > avoids > restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.
Neat, although a little hard to understand at first without the context of what it's referring to (Affero-like clauses). I certainly like it a lot more than the original, though, for all of the reasons you cited. > What do other people think of this? It's sort of a forced distribution > clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing > to use the program. If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have > this replace the proposed (7d). I like it, and I think it should be definitely be submitted to the FSF for consideration. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
