Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:
> I remain of the opinion that this GR would be pointless because even if
> we were permitted by licences to modify the licences, we are prevented
> by copyright law and our promises from modifying any relevant licences.
> We would still be open to accusations of untruthfulness, except maybe if
> we pasted all copyright laws into our foundation documents, so users
> know the limits on our promises.
> Contrary to claims, I don't feel this essential pointlessness has been
> rebutted.
This is a good summary of my position as well, with the added feeling that
these kinds of changes would lead us down a path of more pedantic
nit-picking around our foundation documents, which I personally think is a
waste of energy. (For example, I predict the very first discussion we
would have after passing a GR that says that licenses are exempted from
the requirements of the DFSG would be an argument that the preamble of the
GPL is not a license and hence we have to remove it from the archives.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: