Changes between Version 15 and Version 16 of ApertureLicense

Timestamp:

10/10/05 21:31:24 (19 years ago)

Author:

anonymous

Comment:

--

ApertureLicense

@@ -11 +11 @@
 We at Aduna have internally formulated a number of requirements we believe the Aperture license should have. We are still open to discussion on these requirements though. These are our requirements:
 
-'''Judicially clear license''' - The license should provide a clear view and contain a judicially sound formulation of what rights a user is being given. Read e.g. [http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf this document] for a discussion on the sloppiness of the (L)GPL in this matter and what this could lead to in court case.
+'''Judicially clear license''' - the license should provide a clear view and contain a judicially sound formulation of what rights a user is being given. Read e.g. [http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf this document] for a discussion on the sloppiness of the (L)GPL in this matter and what this could lead to in court case.
 
 '''Politically neutral''' - so no moral preamble like the (L)GPL, which serves us of no practical use.
 
-'''Reciprocal license''' - Improvements to our work (politically correct: work performed by the community) should be given back to that community.
+'''Reciprocal license''' - improvements to our work (politically correct: work performed by the community) should be given back to that community.
 
 '''Limited reciprocity''' - on the other hand, if you create your own components that are to be placed inside the framework, e.g. an Extractor for a proprietary document format, you should not be required to make this available to the community. Rationale: this code may necessarily contain trade secrets and you don't want to scare away such users. Also, people seem to have a natural tendency for more generically applicable component to make them available to the project team, if only because they get free expert feedback and, once incorporated into the project, free code maintainance.