On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 15:44, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:03 am, John O Sullivan wrote: > > > I would welcome any comments on this, as would the <a > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">author</a>. > > IANAL, but my comments follow... > > I'd recommend that the author carefully considers section 2 of the GPL. > > If the moodle logo etc. is hardwired into the sources, then > modification will be required > to remove it, which may only be made under the terms of this section. > The modified > program will fall under the scope of 2c, which requires "an appropriate > copyright notice" > and notice that there is no warranty. > > An appropriate copyright notice would certainly include his copyright, > and potentially > more detail. Perhaps a "clarification" as to what constitutes > "appropriate" could be added > in the same manner that the "linking exception" clauses may be... it > could perhaps be > specified to include the Moodle name at least?
I think that a logo is beyond a copyright notice that 2 (c) requires the preservation of. Why not suggest switching to the AGPL? > Any FSF licensing gurus listening? > While I do licensing for the FSF, I'm not speaking for the FSF in this message. -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
