On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Iain Nicol wrote:
> >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.
>
> My interactions with the FSF regarding the GPLv3 process, and this
> clause, have led me to believe that this is not their intent. Their
> intent is that any new interfaces (added by people who are not the
> copyright holder on the entire work) must have ALNs.
Can we dub GPLv3 "GPL with the advertising clause" then? And the
advertising clause is a lot, lot worse than for 4-clause BSD one -- instead
of just "advertising materials" which in free software there usually none,
GPLv3 forces us to vomit legal crap right in the face of every single user,
even at a cost to functionality. While for GUI apps having an "About" menu
item is usually not an issue, legal notices are a significant burden for
console stuff, both full-screen and line-based. And just think about
software which communicates using voice (hands-free things, for example).
Could the FSF be asked for an official statement? Because if the
interpretation you mentioned is what they want, GPLv3 is SCARY.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
