Subject: Re: Review: Eiffel Forum License
From: Russell Nelson <>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:25:34 -0400 (EDT)

We already told them that it wasn't a well-crafted, unambiguous
license.  They said, approximately, "Many people are already using it.
Please approve it or not as-is."  The question is "Is it open source
or not?"

David Johnson writes:
 > The license refers to the "package" several times, but it does not
 > specify that the package is source code. I can infer this easily, but
 > it might be helpful to clarify that publicly releasing modified
 > versions of the package means releasing the source code.
 > If I distribute a binary that *depends* on the package, I have to
 > release the package modifications. However, it appears that I can
 > distribute the binary of the modified package itself without releasing
 > the changes. Is this intentional, or am I misreading this?
 > What exactly does "without written agreement and without license" mean?
 > -- 
 > David Johnson...
 > _____________________________