[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
> * License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the
> * display of the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo. If the display of the
> * logo is not reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the
> * Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words "Powered by
> * SugarCRM".

To quote the definition of "Appropriate Legal Notices" in GPLv3: 

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
    to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently
    visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice,
    and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work
    (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that
    licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view
    a copy of this License.

That is, the work can require the displaying of the Copyright notice
and that there is no warranty, and that's it. The only other thing
that can be done is "[r]equiring [the] preservation of specified
reasonable legal notices", but that does not include the displaying of
those notices.

SugarCRM really should consult with the FSF before adopting this kind
of additional restriction, but I rather doubt that they have. See
and other similar articles about it.

Don Armstrong

<Clint> why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common?
<infinity> It... Doesn't?
<Clint> good point

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: