[As this is not a technical discussion by any means, -devel is not the
appropriate mailing list. MFT: set to -legal. -project may also be
appropriate.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from
> Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
>
> All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.
There has always, and continues to be, an implicit exception for
license texts in their capacity as a license, and *ONLY* in their
capacity as a license.
This particular issue has been dealt with before, in numerous
discussions over this issue.
Since it is rather trivial to distinguish between a random document
and a document that is acting as a copyright statement or a valid
license referenced by a copyright, if necessary, we can propose a GR
to make this explicit.
However, considering the fact that few people would actually argue
against such a thing, I fail to see the point. [In fact, I submit that
you aren't actually arguing against the inclusion of licensing texts
either, but retreading this argument merely to argue against the idea
that documentation requires the same set of freedoms that programs
do.]
{I'm too lazy to dig up the references to this right now, esp. since
people.debian.org/~terpstra is broken, but search -vote around the
time that the SC modification GR was being debated, specifically for
my conversations with Anthony Towns.}
Don Armstrong
--
It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
smoking.
-- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature