Re: perlfaq license
On Sat, 23 May, 1998, David Welton wrote:
> This is an interesting question.. I think that we will need to come
> up with some different ideas about documentation and its licensing.
> For instance, take a look at the license of the FSSTND...
>
> Permission is granted for FSSTND contributors and participants to copy
> and distribute modified versions of this standard under the conditions
> for verbatim copying for purposes of filesystem standardization
> activities only, and subject to those restrictions listed below.
>
> I think this fails several DFSG points.
>
> continuing..
>
> o No portion of this document may be redistributed in any modified
> or abridged form without the prior approval of the FSSTND coordinator.
>
> I'm sure this fails the DFSG.
>
> I'm sure there are other documents where it makes sense not to have
> them be quite so free. Do we want someone releasing a changed version
> of the DFSG? I mean, if it's GPL'ed, I could rewrite the DFSG to be
> "1. If it doesnt cost anything, it's free!" and distribute it, no?:->
How about the GPL is that covered by the GPL? If so can people make their
own modifications? Obviously this can not be allowed. That means all copies
of the GPL must be moved to non-free.
I think we ought to split packages into two one of the program that can go
in main and one with the copyright, that we can put in non-free so:
bash => main
bash-copyright => non-free
This means that programs must be distributed without their licences on CD,
but this breaks the GPL, so non-free must be distributed on CD, but it
can't.
Bye bye debian, it was nice why it lasted :-)
--
Edward Betts http://www.hairnet.demon.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: