Le Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is exactly because it is anyway wrong to not cite authors that it is > > better to leave the requirement out of the licence. When we publish > > scientific articles, we do not put a disclaimer on the top saying "if > > you read this article, you must properly cite it if you re-use some > > results or concepts in your research." > > > Having that kind or requirement in licences has multipls consequences: > > > - It makes the software non-compliant to the DFSG. > > Why? I don't see anything in the DFSG that says that licenses may not > require citing authors, and in fact many DFSG-free licenses require that > one preserve copyright statements or authorship information.
I see it as violating clause 6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Depending of the wording, the citation clauses forbid the usage of the programs for works published in articles which do not proprerly cite the program. I think that the clauses of preservation of the copyright statement belong more to the conditions of redistribution, whereas the citation clauses are definitely conditions of usage. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
