On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:57:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> wrote: > > > > I'm not arguing that this should change. I don't think there would be any > > gain in that; it would increase the confusion level substantially (license > > discussions get confusing enough without bringing meta-licenses into it!), > > and it would only increase license proliferation. > > Here's an interesting thought. Suppose that we make such an exception > explicit that license texts are allowed to contain invariant sections. > > Now what if I create a new license text and embed software documentation > inside it with cover text saying that the license text must be distributed > as a whole with no modifications? > > Will you allow software that is distributed with this license to enter > main? If not then can you come up with a rule that is not ad hoc to > distinguish licenses such as these from the GPL? We're not obliged to accept something just because it passes the rules as written. Our defence against attempts like this to exploit loopholes has always been "Don't be a prat". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature