On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> > Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove
> > the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means
> > that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your
> > code and prepares a derivative work that is interactive. Is this new
> > author required to put in an appropriate notice?
>
> > He knows that one used to exist because you have clearly marked
> > your changes in the appropriate source files.
>
> It doesn't matter if it used to exist or not; you're only excused from
> complying with 2(c) if you receive the work in a form that is already
> interactive, AND it does not already contain an appropriate notice. If
> you take a non-interactive work and make it interactive, the GPL as
> written requires you to add an appropriate notice. Your only way out of
> this requirement is to go back to an earlier, interactive form which
> legitimately did not include a notice under 2(c).
>
> I would recommend that users of the GPL who find this requirement ugly
> begin adding an additional exemption to 2(c) to their own works.
> Branden, if I'm not mistaken, this would constitute an additional
> permission and is therefore acceptable in your book?
Yes, this makes sense now. I can see from a more careful
reading that 2(c) does obligate you to do add a correct and appropriate
notice.
Simon
