Re: Documentation/License freeness (what RMS says about it) [email@example.com: Re: GPL itself non-free]
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> This is thereply I got from RMS about the copyright freeness issue.
> I think it is clear that we should lay the license freeness issue ad acta.
> Debian should include all licenses in whole, and the dfsg should not exactly
> apply to them.
The DFSG does not speak to the freeness of licenses. It only speaks to the
freeness of software.
> Note that we require the dfsg-freeness for the benefit of the free software
> community. It is a catalog of the minimum rights we need to improve software
> even without the authors agreement.
> We have no real benefit of dfsg-free licenses.
And much potential damage to the freeness of the software could result in
"freeing" the copyright/license.
The license is empowered by the inviolate nature of the copyright. The
freeness of that license can only be insured by the unmodifiability of
both the copyright and the license.
In case I have been confusing, I am in total agreement with your
statements on this issue.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org