Richard Braakman wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to
^-(here I refer to Richard Stallman's argument)
>> programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it allowed
>> 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source and object
code
>> of all derived versions, and must be displayed (perhaps through a
>> command-line option) by every derived program? Maybe you would, in which
>> case you're consistent. I wouldn't.
>
>Heh, you choose an interesting example there.
>
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
> the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
>
>Richard Braakman
My example was deliberate. :-)
I am not very fond of that clause of the GPL myself. But it's worth noting
that it doesn't specify any particular text. Instead, it gives a rather
generic set of requirements. In a modified version, I can (must, in fact)
fulfill these requirements with an announcement which is quite different from
the one used on the original program. Furthermore, the announcement
requirements are directly related to the legal status of the distributed
program. So it's a very different case from GFDL-style Invariant Sections,
and does not correspond to my example.
--Nathanael
