[cmucl-imp] Debian bug 821150: problems with the PCL license [resend]
rjs at fdy2.co.uk
Sat Jun 11 13:30:05 UTC 2016
Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd at mailworks.org> wrote:
>On 10/06/16 17:53, Michael McDonald wrote:
>> Whatâs the problem with the clause? Since itâs a ârequestâs
>> completely optional. So essentially a no op.
>"I am not a lawyer" and "English is not my native language", but for
>example the text "Send me a postcard if you like this software.", which
>to me sounds like an even more vague request, has been declared as
>problematic. As I understand it if the license were to use rfc2119 then
>there would be less of a problem, but standard English is too vague.
>See also https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>> But I personally wouldnât be changing someone elseâs license clauses
>> without very explicit permission to do so. Iâd probably just put a
>> note below the license documenting that the contact info is dead as
>> of whatever date you tried.
>Agreed, however as Stas noted the SBCL people just removed the clause as
>it is 'dead'. Adding a note would not help with the DFSG.
Have you tried sending email to ... at xerox.com ?
I guess somebody could email Daniel Bobrow, he is still at PARC.
More information about the cmucl-imp