[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 Fri, 21 May 2004, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> In my opinion, both GPL 2c and Reiser's 'Anti-Plagiarism License' are 
> merely different distances down the same slippery slope; if forcing 
> derived works to have one line of credits is OK, why not ten?

A few of us[1] aren't particularly happy with GPL §2c. However, the
language that it uses is controlled enough so that it only takes
effect on works that are used interactively, when they are used
interactively in the most ordinary fashion.

Furthermore, there is no "non-modifiability" clause to §2c, there is
merely a functional definition. In other words, so long as you satisfy
§2c's functional requirements, you can change the statement of
copyright and no warranty to your heart's content.

This is not the case in the 'Anti-Plagiarism License.'

Finally, there is a very real and clear difference between credits,
which don't have anything to do with the copyright, licensing, or
warranty of a work, and copyright, licensing, or warranty statement of
a work. We have traditionally been lenient in the application of the
DFSG to verbiage related to these three elements.

Don Armstrong

1: At the very least I'm not. I suspect there are more than a few who
share my dislike of this clause.
If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot
support the government. -- anonymous


Reply to: