Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
>> Goswin von Brederlow schrieb:
>> > E.g. /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2:
>> > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>> > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
>> > Thats clearly not DFSG free.
>> Good point.
>> If this doesn't stop people saying every bit of Debian
>> has to be DFSG free, nothing will.
>> Please file a bug.
> No, please don't. (A.k.a. "get a grip".)
He's making a valid point. The social contract now reads, "Debian will
remain 100% free", and since license files are part of Debian, that's a
violation of the contract.
Previously, it was OK since Debian was only required to be "100% free
software" and those license files could be considered external to the
actual software work. In other words, the software (even including data
and documentation if you'd like) had to be free but the accompanying
license files did not. If we now insist on "100% free", I fail to see
how we can justify this.
The only defense against this argument I've seen is stuff like "Fuck
off", "Get a grip", "Go away", etc. If you want to stick your head in
the sand, go right ahead, but that doesn't make the problem go away.
You win again, gravity!