Subject: Re: IBM Public License
From: bruce@perens.com
Date: 14 Jul 1999 19:37:57 -0000

Oops - I missed one thing. The optional paragraph under 3(iv) about submitting
changes. This was missing from the 1.0 license that was posted publicly to the
Postfix mailing list and some other drafts I reviewed. I objected to it a long
time ago and it seems to have crept back in. My rationale for objecting to it
was:

> I suggest you substitute the approach taken by the APSL version 1.1: Rather
> than require that you send them a copy of every modification, Apple now
> requires that you register where any modifications you produce can be found.
> See http://www.publicsource.apple.com/modifications.html . This has advantages
> for both IBM and the recipient:
> 
> 1. Developers can notify IBM _once_ and then produce modifications on a
>    continuing basis, and IBM always knows where to find them. This drasticaly
>    lowers the overhead on distribution creators (like Debian and Red Hat)
>    in that they need not, every time they revise a package or distribute a
>    beta version, determine if the package contains any modifications that
>    must be sent to someone due to a notification requirement. An
>    all-volunteer distribution like Debian might be seriously encumbered if
>    many vendors required notification after _each_ change.
> 
> 2. IBM won't be deluged with submissions of software.
>    Most Linux distributions would probably err on the excessive side and
>    send you their entire systems (gigabytes in size) rather than stop to
>    classify where the IBM code is in those distributions. Individual
>    developers also have told me that they'd deal with this sort of
>    notification clause by sending too much code.
> 
> 3. A list of URLs is a lot easier for everyone concerned to read and make use
>    of than a ton of unclassified patch files.
>