Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Once again, you're arguing that we should ignore a part of the license we don't like, despite the plain reading. The plain reading says you may not alter or remove copyright notices. That means, as far as I can tell, that you can not alter or remove such notices without breaking the license. If it was supposed to mean something else, surely they would have written something else. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
