Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL > > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would > > > like to keep it. > > > > I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a > > license. It still feels non-free to me. > > Sure, but there is much less consensus about this one, so if a handfull of > people feel it is non-free, i doubt it will come into play.
I would consider it a fee. It is even enshrined in US copyright law [1] The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works. Since all copyrights flow to the originator, I can't help but see it as a fee for making modifications. > > > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it > > > is really needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i > > > ask for some help here in finding some nice and concise wording > > > which doesn't divert to much from the original. The old wording was : > > > > > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices > > > in the Software. > > > > > > And i changed it to : > > > > > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices > > > in the Software except by adding new authors. > > > > If I'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I > > still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an > > "About" box. > > Bah. I doubt this is what was meant here, and i doubt this is going to be a > problem all over. If you don't think that is what is meant, then change the wording to say that (preferably, remove it). Otherwise it is just lawyerbait. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
