Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> base-files:
>> 
>> 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
texts)?

MfG
        Goswin