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.
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.
1: This has been the traditional interpretation of the interaction
with licenses and the SC and DFSG. It was brought up 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