On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:31:31AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > 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: And that means "I don't have an argument, so I'm going to delete yours and then add a straw man". > > Somebody who was creating a collection of licenses (I can't think why) > > might need to worry about this. Most licenses don't even give you > > permission to distribute them, so you're pretty screwed in that > > scenario. > > The base-files package contains a collection of licenses, most of which > don't apply to the base-files package. Those licenses are associated with the packages which use them; they are merely distributed in a slightly different manner. This is the *ONLY* reason why we're allowed to do it at all. If this were not the case then we would be in breach of the GPL at least, and probably the Artistic too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature