On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:16:13PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:45:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 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?
> I'm not sure this would help. In order to remain GPL-compatible (as I > understand it), the exemption must be severable, and if it's severable, > people can still add the notice and make it sticky. > It would be a statement that the original author doesn't *want* such a > notice (and it would be rude to add it against his wishes), but such a > notice can be made without touching the license. The notice requirement is part of the license. The only way to give others the freedom to NOT add such a notice when making a non-interactive -> interactive transition with your code is through a license exemption (any statement that has the power to override this part of the license is essentially also part of the license). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgp742S21vZUL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
