| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Economic interest in GPL ?Economic interest in GPL ?Posted Aug 15, 2008 7:47 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159)In reply to: Economic interest in GPL ? by mikov Parent article: Why the JMRI decision matters
> Correct me if I am wrong, but with GPL the only requirement is to > provide a copy of the GPL with the source, so the only one who is > mentioned is the FSF. Hope they are getting the economic benefits :-) Take a look at section 1 of the GPLv2 or section 4 of the GPLv3. They require that you keep copyright notices intact when distributing copies. Furthermore, section 2(c) of v2 and 5(d) of v3 extend this to interactive programs. If the program displays a copyright notice to the user when run, it is a breach of the license to distribute modified versions that remove said notices. So removing attribution is also a breach of the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Economic interest in GPL ? Posted Aug 21, 2008 1:00 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It's also a breach of almost all of the non-copyleft free software licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc) to remove copyright notices.
Economic interest in GPL ? Posted Aug 21, 2008 16:07 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] It's also a breach of almost all of the non-copyleft free software licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc) to remove copyright notices. AFAIU, this would be a breach of copyright law, that the license reminds you of your obligation in this case is legally irrelevant.
|
|
||||||||||||