Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Glenn Maynard writes:
> However, it's easy to argue that the *license text* should be modifiable,
> as long as it's not represented to be the terms of the software. (For
> example, taking a license, modifying it, and then distributing the result
> independently, or as the terms for a new program.) I think an argument that
> the SC and the DFSG require this is reasonable. License texts are software;
> the GPL (as a text) is not DFSG-free.
> I'm not arguing that this should change. I don't think there would be any
> gain in that; it would increase the confusion level substantially (license
> discussions get confusing enough without bringing meta-licenses into it!),
> and it would only increase license proliferation.
> I can understand the argument that this is an "exception" to the DFSG being
> made that doesn't strictly have to be, though.
The recent GR was specifically about removing the "software" versus
"not software" ambiguity so that no one could argue that exceptions
for documentation or other bits are consistent with the SC. Why do
you assume that this exception for license text is any more acceptable
or permissible than is shipping firmware?