Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> schrieb:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 12:17:30AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 12:37:55PM +1300, Blair Strang wrote:
>> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > >>>Say what? It sure as hell ain't hardware. And, between software,
>> > >>>hardware, and wetware, stuff shipped in Debian is software.
>> >
>> > It took me a while to see what you mean, and I think I do now.
>> >
>> > Silly question: since Debian ships them, are licenses themselves to
>> > be considered software?
>>
>> Obscure corner case. [...]
>
> That's code for: you're right, we're being hypocritical and
> we hoped you wouldn't notice. Please don't mention it again.
>
> Using our "everything is software" definition, licenses are
> of course included.
Yes, except that we should distinguish between license texts and
licenses of software. License texts should be free (so that I can make
my own derivative license from it, and apply this derivative to
what-I-want). But the license of a particular piece of software cannot
be free: Because of its very nature, it is unchangeable. I can take the
text and make a new license for a new package (or use it unchanged), but
I cannot distribute the original package with a modified license.
As far as license texts are copyrightable, they should allow derived
works, and provide all the other freedoms. If (or where) they aren't, it
simply doesn't matter.
> The base-files package contains a collection of licenses, most of which
> don't apply to the base-files package.
These license texts are free, aren't they?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: