Re: License determination
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 05:46:08PM -0500, Randy Edwards wrote:
> > These licenses are close to the 'edge' of what we consider free.
> Yes, I know what you mean. IMHO, it's a contrib or non-free type
> package but I just wanted to get some more feedback on this. Here's the
> appropriate chunk of the license:
> - - - Snip - - -
> BaseSoftware is under GPL (GNU Public License).
> The source code is distributed together with the object code for your
> convenience. You may update the code and contribute back to the master
> Small addition to GPL
> You may not remove the Designed by Obsidian link from the logon screen,
> bypass the logon screen, remove or hide links to the "About" box or remove
> the original author details from the code.
This sounds a lot like
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.)
from the GNU GPL, but also smells strangely of Zope's attribution clause.
My question is does this change restrict what you can do with the program's
output (similar to the old zope license), or is it simply a restriction on
removing the about link and logo (which leads to the about screen, which
contains copyright and author information and is already protected from
removal by clause 2c of the GPL)?
If he's simply trying to keep his name and copyright from being removed from
the about screen, or prevent links to the about screen from being removed,
this clause is probably unneccessary. If the author could be convinced that
clause 2c already protects his interests, he might consider removing the
extra clause and thus prevent this from being an issue at all.