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

Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 01:57, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku.hk> writes:
> >>>>>> "Goswin" == Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> >
> >     Goswin> But I see data as being different, like legal documents that
> >     Goswin> must be kept intact at all cost to ensure the freedom of the
> >     Goswin> rest,
> >
> > You are confusing two concepts.  License of a software describes how the
> > program can be distributed.  The license may specify that if you make a
> > derivative work, or give the program to others, you must use a license with
> > at least as much freedom.  Which is exactly what is done by GPL, and I think
> > very few in Debian will think that this make the license or software
> > non-free.
> You misunderstood me. Its all bits and bytes. Programms and data and
> licenses and RFCs. But data is not equal data. Some data is different,
> i.e. licenses. Otherwise there is no Debian.

I thought the point of discussing whether the GPL is free or not is whether
it can/ should be included "as a Free textual document (aka 'software')".
And this is different from a specific instance of a license as distributed
as a legal instrument with a(nother) piece of software in order to license
that software, which for legal reasons needs to be kept intact.

The GPL's preamble, _as a literary work_ (aka software), is not Free,
due to the FSF's (dis)allowed freedoms with respect to that textual work.

But if it were free, we still couldn't go modifying versions of that license
that come with specific software, since that would be illegally changing the
license of that software without the author's permission.

Hopefully that really clears things up :)

Reply to: