DJA wrote:
>
> Pasted directly from [Tod Walton's] post.
>
> "If the
> GPL starts telling me what I can't do with the software, or what
> modifications I can't make, then it's leaving the realm of a necessary
> patch to the legal system, and starting to become the thing it was
> meant to patch in the first place."
Actually, the GNU GPL in its current incarnation (v2) does apply exactly
those modification limits:
% grep -A9 'If the modified' /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2
c) 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.)
The above is actually 2.c of the GNU GPLv2. Do take note of the
exception.
Lest you think this is a no-meaning clause:
% bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
Any patch that you make to bc, you cannot cause that notice to be
removed or hidden when started interactively. Ever.
-john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
