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

Re: Bug#218073: ITP: dvdrtools -- DVD writing program

Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:

> Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:
>>> Julien Delange <julien@gunnm.org> wrote:
>>>> Package: wnpp
>>>> Severity: wishlist
>>>> * Package name    : dvdrtools
>>>>  Version         : 0.1.5


>>    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
>>    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
>>    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
>>    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
>>    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
>>    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
>>    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
>>    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
>>    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
>>    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
>> I do not interpret that as a need to change the status message to show
>> that this software is a fork.
>> It just talk about a copyright notice, copying conditions and
>> warranties, nothing about the fact that the software is forked or not.
>> It would anyway be very problematic to interpret this license that
>> way. Any big modification can be seen as a fork...
> I don't know, but read together with "If the software is modified by
> someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what
> they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by
> others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations." it is
> not that insensible that "appropriate copyright notice" should
> reflect the fact that is a fork.

It should print at least one more copyright holder by comparison to
the original version.
Somehow, it reflects the fact that is a fork.

> [snip, does not apply to current packages in debian-archive]
>> At the bug removal, it talks about a "restricted code for quality
>> assurance"
>>       * Begin restricted code for quality assurance. 
>>         * 
>>         * Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the 
>>         * Copyright and version printing code below! 
>>         * 
>>         * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version 
>>         * printing code that: 
>>         * 
>>         *      -       Clearly states that the current version is an 
>>         *              inofficial (modified) version and thus may have bugs 
>>         *              that are not present in the original. 
>>         * 
>>         *      -       Print your e-mail address and tell people that you 
>>         *              will do complete support for this version of cdrecord. 
>>         * 
>>         *      -       Tell the users not to ask the original author for 
>>         *              help. 
>> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193619> 
>> I'm not sure at all this is GPL-compatible or DFSG-compliant. Does
>> someone already look into that question?
>> One thing is sure, it has nothing to do with GPL 2c.
> Redirecting to debian-legal.
> The intent of the code is the same as the "tainted"-stuff in the Linux
> Kernel, to make it easy to differ between original Code and modified
> code especially in bug-reports.

I get the intent, I'm more puzzled about the method "you are not
allowed to modify or to remove the [...] code below".

(PS: Please add me in Cc:)

Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage: 		http://yeupou.coleumes.org/		|
  | Computing Homepage:		http://alberich.coleumes.org/  		|
  | Not a native english speaker:					|
  |	http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english 	|

Reply to: