From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 19 9:21:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3737C37B423; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA88488; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:21:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: j mckitrick Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new license idea? In-Reply-To: <20000919160157.A70731@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, j mckitrick wrote: > What about a license where all changes must be returned to the > original author, but do not have to be made public? This way, the > author will not be locked out of improvements to his/her code, and yet > it will be at their discretion if they include them in their own code > or not. At the same time, those changes would not *have* to be made > public. > > This probably has major holes, but after reading > yet-another-license-flame-war, it got me thinking. The solution to yet-another-license-flamewar is yet-another-license? :-) Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message