Compulsory checkin clauses.

[David Johnson]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2000, Justin Wells wrote:

> > As I understand it, these are still considered derived works. foo.c
> > is essentially a patch. There may be exceptions in a few cases, but I
> > won't tread there...
> 
> That's how the FSF considers it, you're right. But my understanding is that
> this is just an opinion. There's certainly room to differ about it, and 
> I'd rather just write something into the license that makes the whole 
> problem go away.

You are correct of course. Two locks on a door is always more secure
than one, especially when you doubt the strength of the first.

You were toying with the language of "third party deployment of the
modification". Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem. A
modification is already a derivation. If one can successfully argue
that foo.c is not a derivation, the same argument will apply for it not
being a modification.

But you're on the right track. Since this whole issue hinges upon an
intent to modify, why not restrict that? Here's a possible clause:
"...distribution of modifications or software intended to modify..."

-- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>