RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 26, 2005 5:18 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
In reply to: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) by jamesh
Parent article: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

it's not a question of wanting to add it, it's a question of will GPLv3 _REQUIRE_ you to add it.

and while IMAP does have a mechanism that can be twisted into providing this (as long as the attachment isn't too large) not all protocols are as easy to manipulate, DNS being one good example.

(Log in to post comments)

Self-advertising protocols

Posted Sep 26, 2005 17:28 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Not to quibble, but DNS is perfectly capable of delivering a URL. Even ping can do that. So can old-standard SMTP. New protocols seem increasingly likely to have a place to paste in a URL.

As for how vague the legal definition of "public performance" must be, applied to software: if in doubt, put in the URL. If anyone you don't know downloads the code, it must have been a public performance.

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 27, 2005 2:39 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

As far as I can tell, the term they are talking about would forbid you from removing such a feature, rather than requiring you to add it.

This is similar to the existing GPLv2 provision that interactive derivative works should print a copyright and warranty notice on startup, which is waived if the original version was interactive but didn't print such a message.

It's a bit hard to say any more without knowledge of the actual terms being considered.

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 27, 2005 3:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

I wasn't aware of such a provision, could you please clarify which clause requires it?

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 27, 2005 6:54 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

Section 2 (c), which deals on creating and distributing modifications to GPL covered software:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

So this clause has the following implications:

If you modify an interactive GPL'd program that prints a copyright message such that the derivative work is also interactive, then the derivative must also print a copyright message.
If you modify an interactive GPL'd program that does not print a copyright message, you are not required to print a copyright message in the derivative.
If your derivative is not interactive, then it doesn't need to print the copyright message on startup.
If you modify a non-interactive GPL'd program such that the derivative is interactive, you need to print a copyright notice on startup.

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 27, 2005 10:16 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

How about reading the article? What is this, Slashdot?