On 2007-12-29, Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given GPLv3, any distro could take it out too, so you'd be relying on > the cooperation of maintainers (whom you already consider > uncooperative or you wouldn't be trying this, right?) Or am I missing > some licensing language (that wouldn't meet the DFSG, if it > *prevented* people from removing the code, rather than merely asking...)
GPLv3 includes provisions for additional terms that may require modified versions to be renamed, etc. [1, Section 7, c & e]. Programs covered by such additional terms (as listed in Section 7) and GPLv3 remain compatible with other GPLv3 software (which may also contain additional terms as listed in Section 7), while those additional terms become viral. That's my IANAL reading of it anyway. If to not keep a limited set of additional terms compatible with GPLv3 codebase, why include such provisions at all in the license? Actually GPLv3, does already in Section 5 state that "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date", which might even be enough, but is up to interpretation. GPLv2 idiotically only required source files to carry notices, but few end users ever see them. > Hmm, what would that look like as a package management feature? just > "new version available" (like synaptic does - if you provided your own > repository you'd have that now) or do you mean just complaining to the > end user that "these packages are stale"? In the case of distros not keeping up-to-date, just complaining to the user trying to install or upgrade a package, that the version available is not in sync with author, and author may not support it. This would be a very useful service for all software, not just for complying with the Ion license. But more generally, of course, a package management system could automatically keep watch on packages being updated, and notify the user. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html -- Tuomo
