> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> as the GFDL. The parenthetical is false. The GPL does not require > >> that it be included in the distributed work, merely with the > >> distributed work. > > > > I don't think this is a very meaningful distinction, for the context I > > was discussing.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:36:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > The distinction is very important when discussing the freeness or > non-freeness of the GFDL. But this was the GPL, not the GFDL. > > Given that the GPL applies only when a notice is contained in the > > work, > > That is not true. For example, I have next to me a watercolor > painting licensed under the GPL. The work itself does not contain a > notice; rather, there is a tag next to it which gives its title, > copyright information, and the fact that it is licenses to all those > who receive a copy -- though not all viewers -- under the terms of the > GNU GPL, version 2. If the work doesn't contain a notice, the GPL doesn't say that it applies. Of course for copyright purposes it might be reasonable to say that the painting and the notice together are contained in the work. > Similarly, I could hand you a book and tell you that I license to you > all my rights in that book under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL > would apply. And if you lied? Or changed your mind? Or if I lied? How could a judge know that I wasn't lying when I tell him you said it was a GPLed work? > > and given that you must keep that notice intact, ... well you still have > > the notice (or notices), which you must leave intact, that's still -- > > in the fully general sense that some people seem to want to use -- > > a restriction on modifications to the work. > > You are incorrect due to overgeneralization. You must leave a notice > iff there was a notice. But, for a start, that is only a mark on the > source code. It need not impact the compiled program at all. That > is, it must be visible to one inspecting the program, but not to one > using the program. You must also leave the notice on an interactive > program intact, but that is also a much weaker limitation -- it does > not apply to noninteractive programs, for example. Are you trying to argue that a GPLed binary is a work independent from the sources it's built from? -- Raul