Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Eg, the GPL says: "keep intact the notices that refer to this license". Now, most FSF-derived programs have a notice likeXEmacs is free software. You may copy, modify, and redistribute it under the GPLv2. You can get a copy of the GPLv2 from the FSF in Cambridge MA. If I remove the "XEmacs is free software" portion, have I mutilated the notice? How about updating the FSF's address? How does the preamble help me to answer those questions?
Are you asking for legal advice? I don't have any. But here is how I see the logic of the applicable law: The preamble helps a lot. You might have to change the literal form of the notice for any number of reasons (e.g., simply to re-format the file). Some of these changes are permitted, others are obviously not. The judgement call is: which is which? The phrase"is free software" is a term of art that constitutes prominent notice of what kind of public license to expect to find. It's clear intent is to make it as obvious as possible to users that they have the very freedoms the license describes in the pre-amble. You would have a difficult time arguing that that part could be removed or changed too much. You would have an easier time arguing that it could be changed to similarly familiar term: "The XEmacs license protects software freedoms," or something. As to the FSF address: What is its function in the notice? Of what, is the user being notified? Is the notice there to inform the user of the one-time street address of the FSF? Or is it there to give users enough information that they can, taking advantage of assistance offered by the Free Software Foundation, obtain a copy of the license? The preamble makes it clear that its the second kind of notice and, for that reason, you're clearly permitted to (accurately) update the address. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
