Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

[Dragon <kysh@blackwolf.com>]

> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> > altered? :>
> > Does this mean we have to move the GPL out of main? ;> 
> 
> The GPL (and the DFSG, by the way) stands for software. For other stuff (documentation, literary work, art, standards, licences themselves), it is not obvious that "free" has the same meaning. And it is not obvious that the GPL is the best licence for these.
> 
> Remember the discussion on debian-legal a few days ago about the W3C standards? It makes sense to limit modifications on a standard. At the very least, if you modify and redistribute the GPL, it makes sense to force you to use another name... which the GPL does not require for software.

Note that I'm not subscribed to Debian-legal... You cannot edit the GPL
and call it something else, nor can you take pieces out of it. The GPL has
full copyright.. you can only copy it verbatim. :>

-Kysh

--
-> 1988 Black Kawasaki EX500 ('Yarf!') <street>
-> FAA licensed private pilot
-> Unix system administrator, was WebTV Networks, now jobhunting!