Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require >> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the >> distributed work. > > I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction, for the context I > was discussing.
The distinction is very important when discussing the freeness or non-freeness of the GFDL. > Given that the GPL applies only when a notice is contained in the > work, That is not true. For example, I have next to me a watercolor painting licensed under the GPL. The work itself does not contain a notice; rather, there is a tag next to it which gives its title, copyright information, and the fact that it is licenses to all those who receive a copy -- though not all viewers -- under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. Similarly, I could hand you a book and tell you that I license to you all my rights in that book under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL would apply. > and given that you must keep that notice intact, ... well you still have > the notice (or notices), which you must leave intact, that's still -- > in the fully general sense that some people seem to want to use -- > a restriction on modifications to the work. You are incorrect due to overgeneralization. You must leave a notice iff there was a notice. But, for a start, that is only a mark on the source code. It need not impact the compiled program at all. That is, it must be visible to one inspecting the program, but not to one using the program. You must also leave the notice on an interactive program intact, but that is also a much weaker limitation -- it does not apply to noninteractive programs, for example. > However, it is true that my presentation of the idea was too simplistic.. > > -- > Raul -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
