Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:45:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

So why didn't they ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther