[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PHPNuke license



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: pgpOWjtk90H4j.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: