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

Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom

Hash: SHA1

On 09/13/07 10:01, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> said: 
>> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>>>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly
>>>> written: " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
>>>> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>>>> Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ??
>>> This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded.
>>> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?  You can use the
>>> GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you
>>> call your license by another name and do not include the GPL
>>> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end
>>> enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU
>>> (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>> Paraphrasing Luk Claes:
>>     besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to be able to
>>     if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the GPL text.
>         They can, as long as they publish it under a new name.

Great.  We agree.

In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC
1725 yet still call it RFC 1725?

If I modify /Alice In Wonderland/, should I be able to call it
/Alice In Wonderland/?  (Might be a bad example, since it's PD.)

>> Quoting Mirim Ruiz:
>>     What about ... changing the format or structure for clarifying, or
>>     even fixing typos?
>         Sure, as long as you change the name of the result and call it
>  Rons General Public License.
>         There is also a pragmatic distinction: License textsembody the
>  permission under which we can distribute the software; RFC's do not.
>  We can't retroactively change the license terms we distribute the
>  software under; so hacking up a license, under law, would mean we can
>  not distribute the result.  That one point of law makes a critical,
>  pragmatic difference; so a Work, and the terms of the licesne which
>  grants us the right to modify and distribute the work, have to be
>  treated differently -- or else we have no distribution.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: