RES: Is this license DFSG free?
* Sean Kellogg ::
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> writes:
> > > Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> > >> stating that you changed the files and the date of any
> > >> change." Doesn't this violate the Dissident test and cause
> > >> troubles for our poor totalitarian state citizen?
> > >
> > > No, because the following statement is allowed by the GPL, and
> > > does not reveal the identity of the dissident:
> > >
> > > "This file was changed on December 10, 2004."
> > Whether that's allowed by the GPL depends on the interpretation
> > of the phrase "stating that you changed the files".
> The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if
> the Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL
> is way too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require
> such a limited changelog would be "provide a notice of the date of
> any change" without reference to "you." It is interesting the
> GPL-FAQ has nothing to say about the topic.
The GPL is not a statute; its language is not to be read under the
hermeneutics principle of "each word counts, there is *no*
ambiguity", but under the principle of "any ambiguity is construed
against the licensor, unless he can *prove* that the licensee
understood otherwise" IMHO.
In the case that I am correct, the phrase "stating that you changed
the files" can be read as including:
/* I changed this file (Sat Jun 11 2005 12:00PM) */