Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Did you actually read the GPL 3 draft? You are responding to something that
> this isn't about: There is no question about it being illegal, but the fact
> that the GPL due to its nature would allow such illegal act by default (as
> it allows any kind of modification) and hence includes provisions to prevent
> specific normally illegal acts by making them illegal even within the very
> *liberal* context of the GPL towards copyright.
>
>  Thorsten

No I didn't read it. Maybe I should go do some homework though. I've taken a
quick look now. My intent was to talk in generalities without first making
myself an expert.

My basic point (for the purpose of philosophical debate) was just that this:

> If you look even at say the GPL 3 draft (section 7, point b), you will
> notice that they explicitly allow authors to prevent removal of splash
> screens and such as an optional addendum to the license. And that is just
> one recent example.

doesn't directly support this:

> Wrong!!! It is illegal to remove copyright notices from copyrighted works.
> The splash screen is exactly such a copyright notice.

as they also are different subjects.  Maybe that's where I assummed
incorrectly. I thought you were using one to support the other.

I think you're answering my first question though.  If I'm interpreting
correctly, I think you're saying that the law doesn't mean removal of "any
and all" copyright notices is illegal.  Rather, it applies just to the ones
you haven't recieved permission to remove.  If it *were* still illegal even
if not fobidden (aka if-allowed-by) a particular license then, being
illegal, any toggling of permissions by the license would be irrelevent
wherever the law applies.

Charles

Post a reply to this message