Re: Would this comply with DFSG?
john@dhh.gt.org writes:
> > How could I improve the wording in that respect?
> By making it extremely unambiguous and definite.
I tought that "you must <vague description>, e.g. <clear description>"
would be an unambiguous and definite indication that any action that
matches the second description is guaranteed to match the first one.
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might not interpret my own
text correctly. I was asking for help to put what I mean into wording.
Simply stating my goal for me is not helping much.
> You can never know everything. Consider these two scenarios:
If the two scenarios are as identical as you assert, why are you so
vehemently opposing one in favor of the other?
> What is the malevolent abuse you are concerned about and how would your
> notice clause prevent it?
Consider some malicious organization grapping the source and starting
to throw programmer hours at improving it. We're doing improvements
too, but the villains subscribe to our announcement list (we are the
good guys) and incorporate our improvements as fast as we can release
them. OTOH we may be ignorant of *their* improvements until we
accidentally stumble across them months later and are eventually
able to persuade someone to leak them to us.
Word will spread that the software offered by the villains is
generally more stable and feature-rich than the one we can offer.
--
Henning Makholm
http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
Reply to: