On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the > > contentious issue of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation > > of section 5 to "Programs", by clarifying that the DFSG applies to > > *all* works. > > Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply > doesn't, well, work. The GPL can be a work, but we are using it (primarily) in the context of a license, as opposed to a mere work. Like copyright statements, valid licenses[1] are legal documents which cannot be modified by anyone save the copyright holder of a work. If people feel that it's important to specifically iterate that copyright statements and valid licenses must necessarily exist outside of the DFSG, that might be appropriate. (I'm not convinced that it's necessary, but I'm not against it either.) As far as licenses included as a mere work, (that is, not specified by a valid copyright on a work included in Debian) have no reason to be included in main unless they can satisfy the DFSG. [Probably no reason even then.] Don Armstrong 1: I'm refering here specifically to a license as specified by a valid copyright on a work included in Debian, rather than the license included on it's own. -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature