Re: PHPNuke license
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:07:21PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I didn't try to reach a conclusion about DFSG-freeness with the above
> > statement for the precise reason that I couldn't find a consensus on the
> > issue with my quick list searching. I'm just saying "I don't like the BSD
> > advertising clause, and this is like that, and I dont like it either."
>
> Okay. Ultimately I think we should try to reform the DFSG or our
> interpretation of it such that the advertising clause is no longer
> regarded as DFSG; it is impractical, and the vast majority of important
> software that used to carry the 4-clause BSD license has transitioned to
> the 3-clause BSD license (or a different license entirely).
Do you mind, Brandon, if we let Niels finish GNU lsh? I sort of
like having a complete SSH protocol implementation in main.
> Furthermore, a broad interpretation of 2c would be inconsistent with the
> way most FSF programs actually work. The stuff in GNU coreutils doesn't
> generally spew a copyright notice and warranty disclaimer to standard
> output or standard error when these programs are are run for their
> typical uses; otherwise normal shell sessions would be awash in legal
> notices and we'd need 100,000 lines of scrollback in our terminals just
> so we could get some work done.
Well, that's because the copyright holder, in this case the FSF,
has chosen not to print or display the appropriate notices. Therefore,
no subsequent contributors need to, although they could add one if they
wished.
Simon
Reply to: