[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in



On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:37:31PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>   1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
>                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> along with the Program.

This is not an additional stipulation of the license, but rather an
acknowledgement of a restriction imposed by copyright law itself.

[Also included in copyright law is a requirement to maintain
attribution of a work to all its authors, and usually a requirement
not to give false attribution to a citizen who was not an author (this
varies depending on context). No restriction is given on the form of
this attribution.]

> The COPYING file itself is also invariant.

The Berne conventione explicitly makes no statement as to the
copyrightability of legal texts. Their status in many countries is
unclear, but there is no compelling reason to believe that copyright
subsists in such a document.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpUlJPjPcAzb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: