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