M�rio Amado Alves wrote:
Mark Rafn wrote:
Fundamentally, if the client is open-source, it can be modified, and the modified version can LIE and say it's the original version. Anything which prevents this is not open-source.
?!
Many (most?, all?) open source licenses require authorship notices be kept.
The opensources licenses usually don't requires explicity authorship notices to be keep, but copyright law usually requires it. So it is not a problem of open sources definitions,
BUT I think that open source movement should actively support that the
programs KEEPS copyright notices, else in case of license problem (change
of law, flaws, incompatibility with oper open source licenses) it whould difficult
to relicense, and as SCO case tell us, it could difficult to probe the origin of code.
So keeps the copyright notices!
ciao giacomo
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
