On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:45:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > >> Sven Luther writes: > >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a > >> >> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so. > >> >> Perhaps it could just be left out? > >> > > >> > Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did they add it. And in any > >> > case, > >> > what harm is there to do so ? > >> > >> Lawyers often add clauses because they're paid by the person who > >> benefits from the clause -- and it makes more work for lawyers when > >> you need to argue over it. > > > > I don't believe this is justification enough. > > > >> If I convert a GUI program to work from the command line, a dialog box > >> could contain a copyright notice. Even if I add new copyright notices > >> with parallel content and function, I would still violate that license > >> clause against removing copyright notices from the software. > > > > Bah, you may violate a too strict interpretation of it, but most assuredly > > not > > its spirit. > > Once again, you're arguing that we should ignore a part of the license > we don't like, despite the plain reading. The plain reading says you > may not alter or remove copyright notices. That means, as far as I > can tell, that you can not alter or remove such notices without > breaking the license. If it was supposed to mean something else, > surely they would have written something else.
So why didn't they ? Friendly, Sven Luther
