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

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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
> > statements:

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:56:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The importance of the argument is not license texts at all.  As I've said, I
> don't really care about license texts in main; if somebody thinks it's a
> problem, they can go ahead and try to fix it.
> The importance is that the word "program" in the DFSG not be used as an
> excuse to ignore much of the DFSG for documentation and other things that
> aren't "programs".  I think there's a clear consensus that the entire DFSG
> applies to all software, including documentation; a large point of 2004_003,
> to my understanding, was to confirm this officially.

As long as you don't think that immutable software licenses are excluded
by the DFSG -- and you seem to be saying that you think they are ok --
I think we can consider ourselves to be in rough agreement.


Reply to: