On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:46:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:17:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The notice requirement is part of the license. The only way to give > > others the freedom to NOT add such a notice when making a > > non-interactive -> interactive transition with your code is through a > > license exemption (any statement that has the power to override this > > part of the license is essentially also part of the license). > I'm not convinced of this. If I take a library and turn it into an > application, it's now an application that doesn't normally print that > announcement. It feels like a race condition--the whole turning into > an application business happened at the same time as turning into one > that doesn't print the announcement, and you seem to be reading the > notification requirement as kicking in between the two events, such that > the exception can't be used. > If your interpretation is correct, then it would seem to also apply to > using GPL libraries; using GNU Readline in an application is the same > (to the GPL) as turning it into an application (or copying and pasting > its code into an application), so every app that uses Readline would > need to have this notification. (There are lots of programs that don't.) Then perhaps we have a license bug here. The text of 2(c) *only* provides an exemption if "the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement". This means that if either "the Program itself is non-interactive" or "the Program normally prints such an announcement" is true, you must comply with 2(c) for interactive works based on the Program. I don't see that any other reading is possible. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpGXSYYT03Ti.pgp
Description: PGP signature