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