Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:04:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed,
> thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license
> about a license.
Why aren't licenses subject to being licensed? They are large copyrighted
works; you could restrict and license a license anyway you want. The GPL
has a license; it's:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Anyway, that's not what was being discussed. The question was about the
large sections of text in some GNU Free Documentation License'd texts
that can not be modified - for example, "Funding Free Software" in the
gcc manual. Is that DFSG-free or otherwise permissable in main? If it
is, then what about other unmodifiable texts? Where's the line, and why?
David Starner - email@example.com
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb,
we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"