Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> 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.
>> And no, those files are not the license of the source they acomplish
>> but stand on their own.
> Nothing in base-files is GPL-licensed? Interesting. I'm sure some
> Essential: yes package is, however, and those could be considered a minimum
> lump, since they're not really separable in an installation.
> I don't like it, of course.
Artistic? Bsd? LGPL?
GPL was the wrong example since thats also the base-files license.
Can we agree that 100% free/DFSG does not extend to the existing
neccessary legal documents (licenses) in debian and work from that to
see what else should be handled more loosly so we get a working Debian
that free where it matters (programs and their data and not legal