No commit message

cernohlideasfor12.md

@@ -7,6 +7,31 @@ preferred way for discussing any issues related to the CERN OHL.
 
 # Current list of things to look at for the next version
 
-  - Coming soon...
-  - ... real soon...
+  - 3.3d deals with the obligation of the licensees to send a
+    notification to the licensors every time they make a modification
+    they want to publish/distribute. It has been noted that, in version
+    control systems like svn and git, people make frequent modifications
+    that get automatically published because the repository is public.
+    It is impractical, and not in the spirit of the licence, to have
+    these licensees inform the licensors each time they commit a new
+    version. This could be improved through a suitable definition of
+    "Modification" in the Definitions paragraph.
+  - From the updates@lists.openhardwaresummit.org mailing list: "I like
+    the idea of a required notification clause. But what we are saying
+    is that it should carefully limit the effort that a person must go
+    through to notify the originators. The most important reason for
+    this is to protect the design from becoming legally unusable because
+    it turns into a "orphaned work". See
+    http://en.wikipedia.org/wikis/Orphan_works for an intro to the
+    subject."
+  - From the updates@lists.openhardwaresummit.org mailing list: "I think
+    that you might want to patch a "hole" in the definition of
+    "Documentation" that allows people to distribute essentially
+    unusable/unmodifiable forms of documentation, such as a photograph
+    of the PCB layout. This adds teeth to your viral provision,
+    otherwise I can claim I modified the documentation (both in content
+    and format) and here is my out-of-focus, impossible to really use
+    photo of the result. GPLv2 and v3 uses: The “source code” for a work
+    means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to
+    it."