[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:22:48PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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

Two of these are by you and the third one explicitely states that the 
email only contains the personal opinion of the sender.

Where's the official statement of Debian on this issue?

www.debian.org tells me why mplayer can't be packaged - where does it 
tell me what Debian calls "software"?

> 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"

The only hit for

  site:www.debian.org "license texts"

brings me to a debian-legal discussion where your new DPL suggests that 
the GFDL should be considered DFSG-free and invariant sections of up to 
5% should be considered DFSG-free.

It seems the opinions in Debian about the GFDL have changed during the 
last four years...

> Glenn Maynard



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply to: