Re: PHPNuke license
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I'm not sure where we could go from there; asking them to change it to only
> > the main page is pointless if that's 1: still ambiguous and/or 2: still of
> > questionable DFSG-freeness. Even if that's DFSG-free, it's still probably a
> > bad idea to ask them to change to that if it's still a questionable
> > interpretation of the GPL.
>
> Let's see if we can build consensus around a few points.
>
> Does anyone here hold the position that requiring the copyright notice on
> the front page would not be DFSG-free, if that's a valid interpretation
> of the GPL?
Requiring an appropriate notice on the front page may not be too
onerous. I don't see it as being DFSG-nonfree as proper attribution is
already considered a reasonable exception to DFSG 3. However, I would
define an appropriate notice as not being specific text. Therefore, a
license that requires specific wording should be thrown out, however a
license that allows you to modify it as appropriate (e.g. to say who
owns the copyright to the system you see, who should be contacted if
this interactive web application breaks, and that there is a warranty
offered by Acme ASP Inc.) It should probably be formatted in such a way
that it is not misleading, deceptive, or hidden; if it exists.
> Does anyone believe the GPL unambiguously *dis*allows that
> interpretation?
No. It does not explicitly disallow this interpretation. Of
course, it also does not unambiguously allow this interpretation either.
> Does anyone believe that this interpretation is sufficiently wrong-headed
> that it should not be considered valid, in spite of statements from the
> copyright holder or a court ruling?
This interpretation of the GPL seems reasonable. However, I
would like to remind that PHP-Nuke's author has not interpreted the GPL
in this manner at all.
Simon
Reply to: