On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:36:11PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > If a web-based CMS constitutes "interactive use" in any fashion, I would > > argue that this could only be so inasmuch as we consider clicking on links > > within the website to be part of a single interactive session, because > > otherwise you have a number of one-shot calls that are not interactive at > > all. Furthermore, "the most ordinary way" for beginning an interactive > > session is by starting at the index page and drilling down. So as I see > > it, the worst case is that the GPL could require you to display the > > copyright/warranty announcement on the entry page of the web app, but > > nothing more. > This seems reasonable to me. > > The PHP-Nuke author has demanded more than this, however; that's his > > prerogative, but I think this puts PHP-Nuke into the same category as > > pine where the copyright holder's exceptional interpretation has rendered > > an otherwise free license non-free. > Yes, but perhaps he could be convinced to go to the version you propose > above. I would add my voice to that. To be honest, my primary concern here is building consensus about where we draw the line wrt the DFSG-freeness of copyright banners, including the implications of the grandfathered GPL 2(c). As a piece of software I find PHP-Nuke particularly underwhelming, and think it would be no great loss if it were removed from Debian whether for licensing or other reasons. If you believe there's a reasonable chance of convincing him to change the license, I'm willing to lend a few lines to the cause, but my (admittedly second-hand) impression as something of a PHP insider is that he's not likely to budge. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpNrPbAE4AXj.pgp
Description: PGP signature