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

Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation
> > that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to
> > be included in the file itself) and does not prevent you from
> > modifying the work in any way you desire.
>     a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> I don't think revision control logs can possibly satify it; it specifically
> says that the modified files must carry it, not external logs.

No it doesn't. And the GPL FAQ says it doesn't, too.

> Besides, a free license shouldn't mandate revision control, any more than
> they should mandate proper indentation or regression testing.

It doesn't. There are plenty of other ways to satisfy this clause.

> > GPL 2(c) has two escape clauses; the first is that you only need
> > display an "appropriate" notice, which can mean almost anything but
> > should not require you to do anything which poses a significant
> > problem to you, and the second is that the clause doesn't apply if you
> > modify the program such that it does not "read commands interactively
> > when run".
> The word "appropriate" is only modifying "copyright notice"; there are
> several other requirements:
> "an announcement including an [1]appropriate copyright notice and [2]a notice
> that there is no warranty ... and [3]that users may redistribute the program
> under these conditions, and [4]telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License."
> I can't release a derived work of gdb that doesn't spam the user on start by
> default (and my personal definition of spamming the user is any unnecessary
> output at all).  I like quiet programs, and programs with defaults that
> resemble my preferences.

"Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show
license' for details", only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration
option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad?

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: