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.
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?