I've been thinking a bit about this license and 2c in general. I'm not particularly happy about 2c because it restricts the ability of programs to be used in specific ways. I can't yet codify what I feel is wrong with it, and what I would do to change it, but I hope to be able to do so in a few days.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: > It's the "modification" that is covered, and you're not allowed to > modify in such a way as to remove a copyright notice that is normally > displayed on startup. You are allowed to modify the code to remove the copyright notice, but you are not allowed to distribute code that contains such a modification. [2a-c only applies to distribution of modifications. The first part of 2 "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program" is typically interpreted to mean that any modification is allowed, as long as you don't distribute it. (Fair use also comes into play here.)] The question seemingly revolves around whether or not PHPNuke is being distributed when the end user deploys the software. If it isn't, then the author's blocking end user modification doesn't fall under the GPL, and the license should be changed to reflect the author's wishes [if the author can in fact do so.] If it is, then we have to determine whether the inability to hide the copyright announcement makes the program restricted enough for it to be non-free. My current gut feeling is that the copyright announcement should be accessible to the end user, in a manner calculated to be readily apparent, but it need not harass the user in every invocation. Don Armstrong -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpHuvPkoY3N4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
