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

Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification

[This is OT for -devel. Send replies to -legal. MFT set accordingly.]

On Thu, 06 May 2004, Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
> Don Armstrong schrieb:
> > If you really want to be that pedantic about things, it's rather
> > trivial to argue that the GPL should be explicitely exempted by DFSG
> > §10, even though I'm personally not happy with doing that.[1]
> But the GPL text is not GPL'ed.

Read §10 very carefully again.

Now note that it doesn't say (even though that's usually what we take
it to mean) that works licensed under the GPL are considered Free. It
just says the licenses themselves are free.[1]

Don Armstrong

1: Yes, if we want to become insane rule-mongerers, its quite possible
to read rules in just about any way that you want to read them. No,
I'm not particularly interested in discussing the other possible
outcomes of such an interpretation.
I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was:
"We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel."
-- Cory Doctorow


Reply to: