Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 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.
Once again, you're arguing that we should ignore a part of the license
we don't like, despite the plain reading. The plain reading says you
may not alter or remove copyright notices. That means, as far as I
can tell, that you can not alter or remove such notices without
breaking the license. If it was supposed to mean something else,
surely they would have written something else.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: