Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos
> > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs
> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or
> > altered? :>
> Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's
> a license, and license text is not protected by copyright. Maybe the
> GPL doesn't like being altered, but it can't stop the alteration.
It is copyrighted as a text. The document itself is explicitly copyrighted
and alteration is explicitly prohibited by the copyright. I was actually
just noting this because it's amusing, not because I saw it as as
problem. As far as I know, any document created can be copyrighted,
regardless of the intent of the document. Just because it is, in and of
itself, a license, doesn't interfere with the copyright.
Don't get the impression that I'm trying to start an argument or anything;
I just thought other people might find it amusing that one can't modify
-> 1988 Black Kawasaki EX500 ('Yarf!') <street>
-> FAA licensed private pilot
-> Unix system administrator, was WebTV Networks, now jobhunting!