On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Peter Karlsson wrote: > MJ Ray: >> Bruce Perens clarified that the DFSG were written to apply to >> everything in debian > > This means that we cannot include stuff like software licenses in > Debian, which in turn means that we cannot really distributed Debian > itself. Copyright clauses, and by extension the licenses which they include by reference[1], are currently the only things that are widely considered to be exempt from the DFSG. [There's also some debate about whether licenses can even be copyrightable... I'm of two minds on the issue, and it definetly is jurisdicition dependent.] If we want to exclude more things from the DFSG, we need to write up a proposal to modify the social contract appropriately and extend another set of guidelines to apply to it. To this point, no one has taken up the gauntlet and done it (or even started to my knowledge.) > That claim is about as absurd as claiming a logotype a piece of > software... I could rather trivially make that claim... but then I'm well known for considering almost everything to be software. [It's one of the problems of being a molecular biologist with a background in computing... everything begins to behave like walking bits of software.] Don Armstrong 1: This only includes licenses that are required by a copyright statement... random licenses included in packages don't qualify. -- "People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide." -- John Brown, DEA Chief http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature