Re: file name rules in licenses
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:37, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Another example: Suppose the Python module "foo" has a similar
> > restriction. Is it really free to claim that "foo" is free when I
> > cannot fix a bug in "foo" and have that bug fix work in all the programs
> > on my system that "import foo"?
> > Yet another example: Would we consider it acceptable to rename "ls" to
> > "lsf" (for "ls fixed") as a legal requirement for fixing a bug in it?
> At some level, this type of requirement is unenforceable, isn't it? One
> can always name it "lsf" and create a wrapper "ls" that execs it. "lsf"
> satisfies the license by having a different name, and the wrapper is brand
> new code so not encumbered by someone else's copyright.
> It's gross, and I lose respect for the software author who put the stupid
> requirement in the license, but it doesn't stop me fixing it nor
> distributing the result, so it's free enough for Debian.
I see your point, gross as it is. :-)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org