about licenses

[Glenn L. McGrath]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:46:30 -0400
Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> On Sunday 16 April 2006 7:56 pm, Rich Felker wrote:
> > I'm really sick of ignorant people bashing GPL v3. There is nothing in
> > it that harms anyone doing legitimate things with the code.
> 
> Yes, there is.  Section 5 (c):
> 
> > c) If the modified work has interactive user interfaces, each must include a
> > convenient feature that displays an appropriate copyright notice, and tells
> > the user that there is no warranty for the program (or that you provide a
> > warranty), that users may redistribute the modified work under these
> > conditions, and how to view a copy of this License together with the central
> > list (if any) of other terms in accord with section 7. If the interface
> > presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a command to
> > display this information must be prominent in the list. Otherwise, the
> > modified work must display this information at startup--except in the case
> > that the Program has such interactive modes and does not display this
> > information at startup.          

>From GPLv2.1 section 2
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.)

> If that crap stays in the final draft, then busybox's standalone mode will 
> have to bloat each individual applet by upwards of a full kilobyte.  It's 
> actually _worse_ than the old BSD advertising clause, we can't afford the 
> space, and we simply will not do it.

It hasnt changed that much from 2.1, for example what GNU does to
satisfy this is

$ sed --version
GNU sed version 4.1.4
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is
NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, to the extent permitted by law.

Which would add about 300 bytes for GPLv2.1, for 3.0 looks like it
would have to be a bit more verbose, maybe an extra 200 bytes.

But im not sure whether the binary we distribute is considered "the
modified program" or not, does that only apply to 3rd parties, or is
each patch make a new modified program ?


Glenn