On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:12:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a > >> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so. > >> Perhaps it could just be left out? > > > > Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did they add it. And in any case, > > what harm is there to do so ? > > Lawyers often add clauses because they're paid by the person who > benefits from the clause -- and it makes more work for lawyers when > you need to argue over it.
I don't believe this is justification enough. > If I convert a GUI program to work from the command line, a dialog box > could contain a copyright notice. Even if I add new copyright notices > with parallel content and function, I would still violate that license > clause against removing copyright notices from the software. Bah, you may violate a too strict interpretation of it, but most assuredly not its spirit. Friendly, Sven Luther
