On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:50PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > About boxes are fine, but I am not sure it is wise to permit a Free > > > Software license to forbid people from removing them. It makes perfect > > > sense to remove an About box if, for instance, one is converting an > > > application into a library. > > I agree. (2)(c) should only apply when an application is run interactively. > > If you make an application into a library, it'd never be run interactively, > > so its relevance should disappear. I know I haven't worded this quite > > right, but you get the idea. > Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove > the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means > that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your > code and prepares a derivative work that is interactive. Is this new > author required to put in an appropriate notice? > He knows that one used to exist because you have clearly marked > your changes in the appropriate source files. It doesn't matter if it used to exist or not; you're only excused from complying with 2(c) if you receive the work in a form that is already interactive, AND it does not already contain an appropriate notice. If you take a non-interactive work and make it interactive, the GPL as written requires you to add an appropriate notice. Your only way out of this requirement is to go back to an earlier, interactive form which legitimately did not include a notice under 2(c). I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works. Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional permission and is therefore acceptable in your book? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgprhIGvXHAo6.pgp
Description: PGP signature