Scripsit Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Here's an interesting GPL puzzle. Say you completely remove > the interactive functionality of a program that uses (2)(c). This means > that you can remove that entire chunk of code anyway. Someone uses your > code and prepares a derivative work that is interactive. Is this new > author required to put in an appropriate notice?
Yes. The requirement to put in a notice holds *whenever* the modified program is interactive, *unless* it was derived from an *interactive* program that didn't have one. This also goes for programs that have never been interactive before (and so never had a notice). If, say, I modified CVS such that it entered an interactive mode when run without arguments, I believe I'd be required to add a 2(c) notice. $ cvs Concurrent Versions System 2.3.4 (makholm fork) (client/server) Copyright 1989-2003 <lots of people> CVS comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details. cvs> update M armadillo.tex ? book.dvi U squirrel.tex cvs> diff -u --- armadillo.tex 3 Mar 2003 10:08 -0000 1.49 +++ armadillo.tex 5 Mar 2003 12:17 -0000 @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ is not important. One may wonder why this paradoxical animal ever evolved? Surely, -only drooling brainless idiots would ever suggest that it was due +only conventional thinkers would ever suggest that it was due to ``natural selection''. No, there is a much more subtle effect at play here, and we will discuss that in the next chapter. cvs> commit -m "toned down the insults slightly" Checking in armadillo.tex; /var/cvsroot/mknbook/armadillo.tex,v <-- armadillo.tex new revision: 1.50; previos revision: 1.49 done cvs> bye $ -- Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."
