Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:25:27 -0800, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> I do believe that "The license must allof for modifications" does
>> mean that any modification of the work must be permissible -- not
>> just modifying whatever the author gives you permission to modify.
>> (Extreme exampls: You can not modify this work, apart from the last
>> period. You can modify that to whatever you want -- does not meet
>> the DFSG, even though it allows you to modify the last byte of the
>> work.)
> The place where this makes me somewhat uncomfortable is 2c of the
> GPL (starting from the standpoint that the DFSG makes the GPL
> DFSG-free by definition and therefore interpretations that make it
> non-free are problematic):
> 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.)
> I realize that this doesn't specify the *way* in which that notice
> is printed, which is indeed important, and I think this is
> substantially less restrictive than the GFDL in several ways.
> However, the comparison to your extreme example isn't as clear to
> me; it is a real constraint on the way in which the work can be
> modified.
> I can see how the hair can be split, but it does feel like splitting
> hairs a bit.
Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard
removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if
the original program displayed copyright notices, not being able to
remove those notices from the displayed text is closer in spirit to
the non-removal of copyright notices from the sources that I think it
passes my "is free" radar.
Of course, if you want to bring forth a GR thjat the GPL is
non-free, I would not stop you, but I'll say this: that GR would also
need a 3:1 majority requirement.
manoj
--
I've already got a female to worry about. Her name is the
Enterprise. Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: