Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> A: No, credits describe the contribution made to a project. Ads >>> describe a product someone wants you to buy. Ads are not the same as >>> credits, and their preservation is not protected by this license. >> >> Debian's going to have to look really, really closely at every release >> of every piece of software under this license, then, and risk an >> argument -- in a courtroom -- with a copyright holder who considers >> some line to be a credit, or insufficiently prominent in its modified >> form. > > Fuzzy lines in a license are not a new thing. Debian isn't in the > litigation business, so we're not going to be trying to push the > boundaries anyway. Respecting the wishes of the author/licensor is a > policy of ours -- remember the pine business. > >>> Q: What in this license prevents persons from making their name >>> display excessively annoyingly throughout the running of the program? >>> Isn't that a flaw in the license? >>> >>> A: The shovel doesn't stop the digger from creating a pit in the road >>> that endangers other people. The license is a tool. Whether you make >>> an ass out of yourself using it on the software you write is up to >>> you. No compiler makes broken programs work.... >> >> In other words, some works under this license are free (for example, >> one containing no credits but the copyright notice) and others are >> non-free. > > Wouldn't such a work still be non-free? At the least, it definitely > goes much farther than the analogous clause in the GPL. You can't > include code (even optionally executed code) to suppress it, for > example.
If there are no credits, the prohibition on removing credits is null. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
