Re: Debian bug 821150: problems with the PCL license [resend]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Van Eynde <[email protected]> writes:

    Peter> Hello Michael and friends,
    Peter> On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote:
    >> What’s the problem with the clause? Since it’s a “request”,
    >> it’s completely optional. So essentially a no op.

    Peter> "I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native
    Peter> language", but for example the text "Send me a postcard if
    Peter> you like this software.", which to me sounds like an even
    Peter> more vague request, has been declared as problematic. As I
    Peter> understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then there
    Peter> would be less of a problem, but standard English is too
    Peter> vague.

    Peter> See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html


    >> But I personally wouldn’t be changing someone else’s license
    >> clauses without very explicit permission to do so. I’d probably
    >> just put a note below the license documenting that the contact
    >> info is dead as of whatever date you tried.

    Peter> Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed
    Peter> the clause as it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help

It wasn't removed. It got moved somewhere else. SBCL still has the
same problem.  Seems really disingenous to say cmucl will be removed
because of the clause but sbcl will not.

You can't just go willy-nilly changing other people's licenses.

--
Ray, who is not a lawyer.

_______________________________________________
cmucl-imp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.zs64.net/mailman/listinfo/cmucl-imp