Re: proposed licence change for moodle
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 15:44, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:03 am, John O Sullivan wrote:
>
> > I would welcome any comments on this, as would the <a
> > href="mailto:martin@dougiamas.com";>author</a>.
>
> IANAL, but my comments follow...
>
> I'd recommend that the author carefully considers section 2 of the GPL.
>
> If the moodle logo etc. is hardwired into the sources, then
> modification will be required
> to remove it, which may only be made under the terms of this section.
> The modified
> program will fall under the scope of 2c, which requires "an appropriate
> copyright notice"
> and notice that there is no warranty.
>
> An appropriate copyright notice would certainly include his copyright,
> and potentially
> more detail. Perhaps a "clarification" as to what constitutes
> "appropriate" could be added
> in the same manner that the "linking exception" clauses may be... it
> could perhaps be
> specified to include the Moodle name at least?
I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c) requires the
preservation of. Why not suggest switching to the AGPL?
> Any FSF licensing gurus listening?
>
While I do licensing for the FSF, I'm not speaking for the FSF in this
message.
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
Reply to: