On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:35:42 +0100 Iain Nicol wrote: [...] > Concerning section 5d of the final text of the GPL 3: > > 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > [...] > > d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must > > display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has > > interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal > > Notices, your work need not make them do so. > > Francesco Poli worries: > > It mandates a feature that I *must* implement in *any* interactive > > interface of my modified work. [...] it seems that when a > > non-interactive work is modified so that it becomes an interactive > > work, the modifier is *compelled* to implement these features in > > *any* newly created interactive interface. > Could this requirement be interpreted more liberally?
I wish it could, but I am afraid it cannot... :-( > I'm > concentrating on the bit from "however". Suppose: I receive a program > under the GPL 3. I create a new interface for the program, without the > legal notices. If the work, as you received it, has *no* interactive interfaces, the exception granted with the "however" sentence does *not* apply. As a consequence, *any* interactive interface you add to a non-interactive work *must* display Appropriate Legal Notices. > > The license says that, when distributing my modified version, I "need > not make" interfaces of "the Program" that don't display a legal > notice display a legal notice. I think, then, to be exempt from the > requirement to make user interfaces display legal notices, my modified > version of the Program would have to count as just "the Program". > > Consider that "The Program" is defined as: > > "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this > > License. > When I convey a modified source version, 5c) requires the entire > modified work be licensed under the GPL. This then means that when you > convey a modified "the Program", the new bits are licensed, and so the > whole modified program becomes just "the Program". I do not need to > add legal notices to interfaces of "the Program" that lack then. Unfortunately, I don't think this interpretation is correct. In the context of section 5 (and of other sections too), the "Program" refers to the GPLv3'd work, as you received it, while the "work [based on the Program]" is the modified version of the work that you produced by modifying the Program. Let me quote the relevant part of section 5: | 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. | | You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to | produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the | terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these | conditions: [...] > > I'm curious how far fetched people think this is. > > If this interpretation were true, then the only burden of this section > would be to keep the legal notices in the user interfaces that you > keep, but you would *not* be required to add any notices to any user > interface, regardless of whether you wrote the interface or not. I have tried to convince the FSF to drop clause 5d or, at least, to relax it so that it only required what you have just said: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=709 http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=1659 http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20gplv3-draft-1%20%%3E&id=2764 http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=3214 but, unfortunately, I failed. :-( -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpHFQH2xeuLa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
