Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
John Hasler wrote:
> Eike writes:
>> AFAICS, GPL inclusion would render any package non-free.
>
> And some authors require that the GPL be included in the package.
>
>> Of course, this does lead to stupid consequences (AKA suicide). It's
>> just an example that the editorial changes where stupid, because they do
>> lead to such consequences.
>
>> The opinion that GPL as a license doesn't make a component unfree seems
>> to be settled on the old version of the SC that demanded only software to
>> be free.
It also demanded that only software could be in Debian. Quite clearly.
Maybe that was due to incompetence in drafting, but if so why hasn't anyone
tried to amend it until very recently? :-P
Alternatively, maybe it meant simply that only those things in 'main' which
were also 'software' were 'part of Debian'. This is an interesting
interpretation which had not occurred to me (maybe because nobody had
suggested it). Perhaps this was AJ's interpretation? If so, I apologize
for my attacks, since that interpretation is consistent and even
reasonable! (Although it would require deciding on a case-by-case basis
what is 'software', which is horrible and hopeless in the long run, and
would also mean, consequently, that it's incredibly hard to tell what's
part of Debian and what's not.)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: