Re: An attempt to narrow the issues
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 03:52:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > One example of a requirement that doesn't impinge freeness, but isn't
> > in option one, is something that says "you must preserve the notice
> > that the unmodified version of this software can be found at web site
> > foo." Such a statement is sometimes found, is not included in option
> > one, but would be allowed by modified option one (as it should be).
>
> I think this kind of requirement is a good illustration of the problems
> with invariant text :)
I don't think so, I think it more clearly illustrates the problem with toot
tight definitions.
> All future users of the software will be required to include that
> statement, even when it is no longer true.
It still may be of historic interest. In case the copyright holder still is
available, you might very well get the permission to update the info if you
bother to ask, as long as it is in their interest.
The GPL example was a good one. Do you want to allow someone to change it
to: You can get the latest version of the GPL from Microsoft Cooperation, Redmond?
Probably not. But as long as the FSF exists, it can always grant permission
to update it.
In fact, the GPL usually is applied in a way to allow upgrading the license
to any later version, so this problem was neatly solved for the GPL. I
don't know if the new address spawned a new version, but the FSF would have
clarified, I am sure.
> Web site foo might have
> been turned into one of those obnoxious porn sites that use javascript
> in creative ways. But still, you must preserve that notice.
You can add a new notice that informs the user about it, if everything else
fails. I don't think there is any real world problem that can't easily be
solved here.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: