On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:57:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> 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 ? > > What? Why are you asking *me* this? You're the one claiming to have > knowledge of what was really meant by the license, if it's read at a > proper angle through a lens of absinthe.
Brian. The licence in question was written by TrollTech lawyers, _and_ reviewed by all free software/open source/distro/whatever guys back then. Also, there was a big thread about the QPL in 99 on this same list. If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is ok. We should concentrate on the real problems, namely the clause of venue and QPL 6c, which i have ground to believe will be no problem for upstream anymore, altough i have no official answer yet, and QPL 3b, which still remains problematic. > My assumption is that they wanted to ban certain modifications of > their work, and were more concerned about maximizing credit than > writing free software. They just wanted to make sure someone didn't remove the copyright notice, or alter it to remove older contributors. Adding new contributors should be permitted, but that is the extent of it. Friendly, Sven Luther
