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.