Re: PHPNuke license
Scripsit Simon Law <sfllaw@engmail.uwaterloo.ca>
> 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?
Yes. The requirement to put in a notice holds *whenever* the modified
program is interactive, *unless* it was derived from an *interactive*
program that didn't have one.
This also goes for programs that have never been interactive before
(and so never had a notice). If, say, I modified CVS such that it
entered an interactive mode when run without arguments, I believe I'd
be required to add a 2(c) notice.
$ cvs
Concurrent Versions System 2.3.4 (makholm fork) (client/server)
Copyright 1989-2003 <lots of people>
CVS comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
cvs> update
M armadillo.tex
? book.dvi
U squirrel.tex
cvs> diff -u
--- armadillo.tex 3 Mar 2003 10:08 -0000 1.49
+++ armadillo.tex 5 Mar 2003 12:17 -0000
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
is not important.
One may wonder why this paradoxical animal ever evolved? Surely,
-only drooling brainless idiots would ever suggest that it was due
+only conventional thinkers would ever suggest that it was due
to ``natural selection''. No, there is a much more subtle effect
at play here, and we will discuss that in the next chapter.
cvs> commit -m "toned down the insults slightly"
Checking in armadillo.tex;
/var/cvsroot/mknbook/armadillo.tex,v <-- armadillo.tex
new revision: 1.50; previos revision: 1.49
done
cvs> bye
$
--
Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."
Reply to: