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

Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification

On Wed, 05 May 2004, Brian Nelson wrote:
> 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.

License files that are legal documents (eg. are incorporated by
copyright) have been excluded from needing to comply with the DFSG for
quite some time. [Primarily because in their position as a legal text
they can't be modified anyway, so they must necessarily violate some
portions of the DFSG.]

It is quite trivial to distinquish between a license which is a legal
document necessary to include and a license which is just text. The
latter must comply with the DFSG, while the former need not.[1]

Again, if you seriously think this is a problem (beyond the mere
argumentative games that are being played here) bring up the issues on
-legal, or -project or propose a proposal on -vote.

Don Armstrong

1: This has been the traditional interpretation of the interaction
with licenses and the SC and DFSG. It was brought up[2] during the SC
vote, and the same interpretation was advanced then.
I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum
is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!"
The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a
stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson


Reply to: