Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion

[Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>]

> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its
> >> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a
> >> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to
> >> require a copyright notice on *every* page -- just on the home page.

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> > I don't think there was consensus that either of these interpretations are 
> > acceptible to Debian.  Requiring a copyright notice on the homepage would 
> > be unfree IMO.  

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> But the requirement for a copyright notice on the homepage is a
> consequence of the GPL's interactive-session clause and the
> interpretation that a web session is a single execution of a program.
> If that interpretation is reasonable, DFSG 10 establishes a
> requirement for an initial copyright notice as unambiguously free.

I should be clearer. The first interpretation (that a webserver is
non-interactive, and GPL2c does not apply) is clearly free, and the lack
of consent is on the part of the author ;)

There was no consensus that the second interpretation is reasonable (I
personally believe it to be quite a stretch). Perhaps due to this lack of
agreement, there hasn't been much exploration of exactly what the GPL2c
requirement would be in this case (i.e. can the notice be in a comment or
an HTTP header, can it be a tiny link to another document, etc.).

Requiring specific text in a specific location seems quite non-free, 
regardless of whether an HTTP client can be considered interactive use.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>