Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

[Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>]

Lewis Jardine <s9902074@sms.ed.ac.uk> writes:

> I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as
> complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license
> their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully
> understand. I (and, in my opinion, any 'reasonable person') must assume
> that when an author releases under the GPL, he intends to permit any
> modification of the program (including the removal of run-time
> advertisements), as the GPL states.

The GPL is actually a rather interesting case here, since it *does*
require the preservation of credits, and in a way that I believe Debian
finds acceptably free.

|   2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
| of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
| distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
| above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
| 
| [...]
| 
|     c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
|     when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
|     interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
|     announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
|     notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
|     a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
|     these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
|     License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
|     does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
|     the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

In fact, on first glance, I'm not sure that I understand the difference
between Debian's inclusion of software which triggers GPL 2c (such as bc)
and a similar clause for non-interactive programs.  Maybe I'm missing some
previous discussion?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>