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

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:47:45PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> Article 10 of the DFSG reads as follows:
> The "*GPL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>*", "*BSD 
> <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>*", and "*Artistic 
> <http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html>*" licenses are 
> examples of licenses that we consider "/free/".
> The next time anyone spouts off about how the GPL's requirement that the 
> license itself
> not be altered, please point that someone to this text. The GPL is OK 
> according to the DFSG
> because the DFSG itself explicitly says so in its text.  No amount of 
> clever argument on
> debian-legal can change that. So, one of the founding documents of the 
> Project explicitly
> blesses licenses that require the license text itself to be invariant.

This is clearly referring to the *terms* of the GPL, not the *text* of the

If you disagree, then you and I have different interpretations of DFSG#10.
Since your goal is merely to be condescending, and to try to blow off
threads that you're not interested in, I'm not going to debate this with

(With that, we can ignore the spouting off of Joe Buck.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: