> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its > >> own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a > >> web session as a single execution of the "program", you don't get to > >> require a copyright notice on *every* page -- just on the home page.
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't think there was consensus that either of these interpretations are > > acceptible to Debian. Requiring a copyright notice on the homepage would > > be unfree IMO. On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > But the requirement for a copyright notice on the homepage is a > consequence of the GPL's interactive-session clause and the > interpretation that a web session is a single execution of a program. > If that interpretation is reasonable, DFSG 10 establishes a > requirement for an initial copyright notice as unambiguously free. I should be clearer. The first interpretation (that a webserver is non-interactive, and GPL2c does not apply) is clearly free, and the lack of consent is on the part of the author ;) There was no consensus that the second interpretation is reasonable (I personally believe it to be quite a stretch). Perhaps due to this lack of agreement, there hasn't been much exploration of exactly what the GPL2c requirement would be in this case (i.e. can the notice be in a comment or an HTTP header, can it be a tiny link to another document, etc.). Requiring specific text in a specific location seems quite non-free, regardless of whether an HTTP client can be considered interactive use. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
