UnitedLinux and "open source"

[David Johnson]

On Sunday 16 June 2002 08:40 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson scripsit:
> > There's nothing in the MIT or BSD licenses that specify invariant
> > sections. I am required to keep the copyright statement, list of
> > permissions, and warranty disclaimers around, but there is no requirement
> > that they must be a part of the source code.
>
> I don't think you can hike off the copyright notice if it appears as
> part of the source code, though, nor the permissions/disclaimers.

I think you can. You can't remove it from the distribution, but you can remove 
it from the source and put it in the README.

The wording of the MIT license is a bit vague: "The above copyright notice and 
this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial 
portions of the Software."

Does the "in" mean the source code or the software distribution? I'm sure it 
means in the distribution, since the license defines "Software" as "this 
software and associated documentation files".

The BSD license is clearer, in that it specifies that the distributions must 
"retain" the notices.

Of course, removing the copyright notice is a rude thing to do.  But in some 
circumstances it may be warranted. For example, if I wanted to use the code 
as an example in a text book, I would move the notices to the front or back 
matter.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3