Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I have to admit that the subject of my email lacked the question mark
> that was at the end of the email and that should have been at the end of
> the Subject, too. Is one missing question mark enough for being
> publically called a troll?
A subject line such as "why is the GPL allowed in main, despite the text
not being modifiable" would have worked. Starting out with "GPL'd programs
go to non-free", question or statement, just screams of yet another person
gearing up to try a poor and faulty reductio ad absurdum against maintaining
high standards of freedom: "hey, license texts aren't modifiable, so if you
guys want to require everything to be free, we'll have to move everything
into non-free; therefore, you need to let my non-free documentation and
fonts and firmwares into main!"
> Please tell me where the document is I should have found that explains
> Debian's position on this issue and then you have my publically stated
> apology for starting this thread.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00009.html footnote [1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00448.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/01/msg00059.html
And note that this isn't specific to the GPL, but common to all copyrighted
software that requires that the license text itself accompany the work. This
includes every free license I've seen in use, including the 2-clause BSD
license and the X11 license.
FYI, I found the above via google: site:lists.debian.org "license texts"
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: