Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
>>>>> "RM" == Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
RM> and that the maintainer should contact the author for
RM> clarification on this issue.
I've already done it. I think it would be best to stop speculations
about SWI Prolog license until I receive some answer. Of course, this
doesn't mean we should stop discussing general implications pointed out
by this license, they are quite interesting.
>>>>> "KR" == Kristoffer Rose <Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR> writes:
KR> IMHO (as expressed before) SWI-Prolog's condition is almost an
KR> instance of the advertising clause with two variations:
KR> 1. it is only required for certain fields of endeavor (only
KR> academics are required to reference :),
No. Everyone who publishes is affected. It doesn't "discriminate"
e.g. AI researchers.
If it was considered as a discrimination of academics, I would say GPL
discriminates programmers (they are the only making derived works),
since they must write date and description of each their change.
KR> 2. it is a restriction on the USE of the software since it
KR> applies even in cases where no redistribution is in question.
This is a question. You can look on publication which was received
through the program as a derived work of some kind. It can be looked in
similar way as e.g. output of ray tracer or compiler.
You can use the program as you like. Only if you derive some output of
it and want to distribute it (publish), you must satisfy certain
conditions (to give credit).
I don't know whether this requirement has bad implications like the
advertisement clause has. (Are we talking about problems implicated by
the advertisement clause and not about advertisement clause as an evil,
aren't we?)
Milan Zamazal
Reply to: