On Monday 26 Oct 2009, James Sleeman wrote: > On 26/10/09 04:39, Durk Talsma wrote: > > The code itself was > > committed under the GPL, with the explicit intention of > > exposing crooks who had been tinkering with the binary. Anybody > > still has the right to change that source code, to modify it > > according to their needs. > > I would submit that if this is the case, only to > discourage/prevent binary modification without the possibility of > redistribution of the source, then a comment in the code of that > function regards the need to "properly" change the URL by direct > entry of the corresponding character values would perhaps be more > agreeable to followers of this list. > > It would in that instance undeniably be a measure to prevent > violation of GPL, and not seen as a subterfuge to discourage use > of the GPL, in fact it could be seen as supporting the GPL if > such a comment was present.
Condition 2c of the GPL (V2, which the version that FG uses) says; "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.)" and condition 2a says: "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." It could be argued then that FG _should_ display such a license and warranty message, along with the other startup status messages on the splash screen, but in any case, there would be no problem in incorporating such a message. Furthermore, should that bit of code subsequently be removed by someone who then redistributes the software they must include a notice in connection with its removal in the amended source code, which as GPL'd software must be made available. While removal of that bit of code would be trivial (and it shouldn't be made difficult to do) it would force a change in the code, which must be accompanied by the notice in the amended source. Then the issue just comes down to whether the amended source code is made available or not, which would then be a valid licensing issue. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
