Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
> > c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> > when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> > interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> > announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> > notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> > a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> > these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> > License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> > does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
> > the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> > Otherwise put: if the program shows the 'no warranty' clause from the
> > GPL at startup, you may not remove it. Although a 'no warranty' message
> > is certainly not the same as a list of sponsors, they both require some
> > messages being printed for legalese reasons. I, personally, see nothing
> > wrong with that; it certainly doesn't result in software being non-free.
It's important to note that it must display "an announcement..." which
meets certain criteria. It does not forbid modification of form or
content of the announcment.
You are free to remove whatever announcement is there and replace it with
a differently-worded one that contains the required elements.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote:
> Actually, what Hans Reiser should do is assign copyright for parts of
> the work to all of his sponsors. Then, an "appropriate copyright
> notice" would list all of their names. That would be fully within the
> letter of the GPL.
I'm not sure even this is required. It seems reasonable, and I'd expect
most modifiers would do this. However, it may be an "appropriate notice"
to just say "this work is copyright (c) 2003 by multiple authors, see
"AUTHORS" for details.
IANAL, so I don't know where the edge is here.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: