Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
> >> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
> >> Perhaps it could just be left out?
> >
> > Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did they add it. And in any case,
> > what harm is there to do so ?
>
> Lawyers often add clauses because they're paid by the person who
> benefits from the clause -- and it makes more work for lawyers when
> you need to argue over it.
I don't believe this is justification enough.
> If I convert a GUI program to work from the command line, a dialog box
> could contain a copyright notice. Even if I add new copyright notices
> with parallel content and function, I would still violate that license
> clause against removing copyright notices from the software.
Bah, you may violate a too strict interpretation of it, but most assuredly not
its spirit.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: