Hi John, Thanks for your input.
I'd be a little worried about what people might define as a "fix". Is > there any opportunity there to shoehorn other things into that category > / what's the check on that? Since many companies have over the years > called things security fixes or bundled things with security fixes that > are either clearly not or that very much depend on who is defining both > "security" and "fix". I am very worried about that too. That is why most of the clause is limitations designed to prevent gaming of the provision: - It has to be new - It can't apply to all modifications only to a "particular" modification addressing a security vulnerability - It has to significantly affect a user - It has to be part of a coordinated release with others (so it isn't just one licensee's idea of a "fix") - And it doesn't prevent sources from being released, it just delays them by a set amount of time But I would be open to any other anti-gaming provisions as well. Thanks, Van
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
