license

[Arthur]

Tim had written -

>As I said, the PSF license requires that derived works include a brief
>summary of changes made from the base distribution. That, along with
>preserving the PSF licence and copyright notice, is roughly all it
requires.

Terry writes -

>Why am I adamant? Because you are proposing to mount a legal attack on a
>developer for creating Free software. I can think of no more effective way
>to chill development than if such a precedent were somehow to succeed
>(fortunately, I feel confident that it would not).

I'm arguing that there is a colorable violation of the specific terms of a
license.  If, as a legel matter, I am wrong, I am wrong. That's a legal
question.

But isn't you statement so broad, Terry, that anyone undertaking an effort
to enforce the specific and clear terms of an open source license as to a
distributor of software that happens to be free, is committing "Perfect
Evil".

What if, instead of overwriting the index.html, this distribution overwrote
the core interpreter - without warning or notice.

No recourse?

Perhaps you are right, there is none.

But a Loophole shouldn't be given Nobel Status, IMO

Art