Re: Corel's apt frontend
Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
> > Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
> > formats would be in violation of copyright.
> We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop this thread, I
> think all arguments have been made and in the end we'll just have to
> wait what comes out of Ian's discussion with Corel.
Maybe Ian/Debian/GNU should clarify how Debian/GNU code is licensed
and intended to be used. It'd be a lot easier for some of us if there
was a statement saying what can and can't be done with Debian/GNU.
I'd never have imagined that distributing a non-GPL'ed shell script or
other such frontend for dpkg was unacceptable and I've been reading
about the GPL for a long time. I wouldn't want to fall into that kind
of trap by mistake.
Do please consider using a more explicit license if GPL keeps causing
all these misunderstandings. Or go the way of Linus Torvalds and
expand on what you think the GPL grants or not
(/usr/src/linux/COPYING). I don't see why you shouldn't, unless you
do want to fool or confuse people.
who has been using and installing Debian/GNU too damned recklessly.