On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:19:54PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 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.
You can't modify the GPL to create a new, derivative license because
the FSF say you can't. You can't apply a new license, whether based on
the GPL or developed from scratch to an existing work because you're
not the copyright owner.
The first is a problem as far as DFSG-freedom is concerned, the latter
isn't.
Neither is a problem for Debian, unless you start insisting that we're
betraying our principles to even consider including anything non-free
no matter what it's form under pool/main.
> As far as licenses included as a mere work,
There's nothing "mere" about works; nor does it make a lot of sense to
treat licenses differently when they cover a free work to when they're
included in the package for other reasons (namely, they benefit users
of the package in some way, such as serving as an example).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature