[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please remove RFCs from the documentation in Debian packages

On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> >> There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
> >> non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
> >> or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
> >
> > I have argued on debian-legal that licenses as applied to specific works
> > that are part of the Debian OS (meaning, "in main") are permitted to be
> > non-modifiable, for the same reason that the copyright notices
> > themselves are permitted to be non-modifiable.
> This is a strawman,

Bullshit.  Do you even know what a straw man argument is?  Whose
position am I distorting in the text you quoted?  My own?

> about one third of the GPL is not the actual permission notice,

Yeah.  So what?

> and these parts already required updates.

What, such as the mailing address of the FSF?  Is this a big deal?

> > (Yes, I know that we ship it in a way you might think is "of itself" in
> > base-files.  You'd be right if we didn't have other packages' copyright
> > files refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, but we do.)
> Does this take into account that there are multiple versions of the
> GPL v2 floating around which aren't bit-wise identical?  (I'm just
> curious, I don't think it really makes a difference as these changes
> are not part of the permission notice.)

I think you answered your own question.

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |           If existence exists,
branden@debian.org                 |           why create a creator?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpEkcAWpMsct.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: