Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as > complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license > their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully > understand. I (and, in my opinion, any 'reasonable person') must assume > that when an author releases under the GPL, he intends to permit any > modification of the program (including the removal of run-time > advertisements), as the GPL states.
The GPL is actually a rather interesting case here, since it *does* require the preservation of credits, and in a way that I believe Debian finds acceptably free. | 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion | of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and | distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 | above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: | | [...] | | 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.) In fact, on first glance, I'm not sure that I understand the difference between Debian's inclusion of software which triggers GPL 2c (such as bc) and a similar clause for non-interactive programs. Maybe I'm missing some previous discussion? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
