Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright >> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for >> > example? > >> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an >> > appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequate for >> > that purpose. > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:46:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> I suggest you open Netscape or Mozilla and look at the about: page. >> You will see copyright notices along the lines I suggest. > > Netscape doesn't make any attempt to require that developer rights be > passed on to users. > > I don't have Mozilla on any machine I have access to (I use Konqueror > on my machine). > > Then again, the mere mention of Netscape shows that you don't understand > the nature of my objections (that they're only relevant in a context > which requires people pass rights on to subsequent users of modified > versions of the program -- my objections are specific to the context of > the GPL and its terms).
Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how "portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a reference to a GPL'd project (Mozilla) in which they are used. >> > I don't think you understand what I'm asking. I'm asking about how >> > you expect the boundaries between the incompatible parts (where future >> > versions of the GPL are allowed and where they're not) are meant to be >> > maintained. The copyright file won't work for that, unless you place >> > further restrictions on how people edit the program. > >> > But you're not allowed to place further restrictions. >> >> The copyright file does work for that. And if you have doubts about >> what is under what license, you can ask the copyright holders. > > I agree that the copyright file allows you to place further restrictions > on the derived program. However, in that circumstance, you're not > allowed to distribute it. Sigh. You aren't even reading your own text any more, much less mine. You said the copyright file doesn't work for indicating boundaries of works. I said it does. Now you've chosen to read my response as referring to placing further restrictions. >> > Except, section 2 requires that if you choose to distribute the modified >> > program you distribute the modifications such that "this program" also >> > refers to the modifications. >> >> Yes, but when "this program" is taken as referring to the modified >> version, then the "licensor" is the modifier, not the FSF. > > Yeah, great. > > I'm disputing the claims you've made about the terms the program is > available under, and you're talking about who holds the copyright on > the program. What I have said is very relevant: Go read GPL 6: it provides a grant of license from the original licensor. You can't claim that "the Program" means *my* work and "the Licensor" means the FSF at the same time. > Though, I suppose it's worth pointing out, with modified versions both the > FSF and you hold copyrights. And there's no problem with this unless you > try releasing the program under different terms from what the FSF used. > > If you want your bits to be available under different terms from the > FSF's, the right way to do this is make your bits available in some form > which is independent of gcc (or independent of whatever program we're > talking about). What? That's mad. Why can't I put my parts into the public domain and distribute them, or put them under some GPL-compatible license and distribute them? -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]