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

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (I'm also not convinced that DFSG#10 talks about the text of the license
> rather than the terms.  I tend to find that as DFSG#10 is so vague, doesn't
> actually place any requirements on freedom, and that there is nothing
> approaching consensus as to what it means, that it's best ignored.)

Then that's probably the root of our disagreement (if, in fact, you are
disagreeing with me).

DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we
consider free.  This true, even though the GPL contains the following

   Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
   license document, but changing it is not allowed.


   You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
   code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
   and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
   and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer
   to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any
   other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with
   the Program.

The rest of your argument seems based on ignoring this issue.

[Of course the license has more to say -- for example, you can also copy
and distribute derived works if you meet some additional requirements.
But this, I think, shows that the mere fact that a license can't be
changed doesn't cause it to violate the DFSG.]


Reply to: