Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case
Andrew Ross wrote:
> The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php
[...]
> I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll
> chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the
> following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoint:
>
> "The AGPL and the extra term ensure the consumer's RIGHT to know
> that the PDF was produced by iText. Denying this right is IMO
> exactly the abuse of Free Software the AGPL wants to avoid."
I doubt that the AGPL wants to be a souped-up advertising clause,
given the FSF's past arguments such as
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
(Please don't personify the AGPL. It hates that.)
I feel that this case depends on whether specifying a particular
exact wording of a legal notice is "reasonable" (as it says in
the AGPL). I'm pretty sure it's not, but I'd welcome any evidence
either way.
Would someone more knowledgeable about the case like to clarify the
point with licensing@fsf or shall I?
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: