Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If they did not pick on this, there is sane reason to say this is > ok.
I don't think that is a safe assumption to make in the general case, and I know it doesn't apply here. Immutable notices have been rejected from Debian before, for this same reason. > 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. Does that actually mean QPL 6 will be removed from the OCaml license? Oh Frabjuous Day! Or just QPL 6c? That would not be frabjuous, but I still might callay. >> 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. Yes, but a ban on removing all and any copyright notices is not Free. It's fine for an author to require that there *be* a copyright notice, but forbidding translation or addition is not Free. Requiring a specific dialog box isn't either -- it doesn't translate to systems without a GUI. Requiring specific text output also isn't free, as it doesn't work with non-interactive or embedded systems. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
