On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > 1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which > > is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with > > this; it is certainly an author's right to refuse to > > endorse arbitrary changes. > > > So, the full terms that the GPL is distributed under, as explained on > > the FSF website, actually comply with the DFSG. > > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the > GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that > invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed, > though. I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that was tangentially related to this point, but the FTP admins and I agreed that having non-free source code in a package's .orig.tar.gz was unacceptable even if it wasn't "used for anything" and did not appear in any binary packages. In other words, invariant sections (small I, small S) are not DFSG-free, but the removal of invariant sections from a work may be sufficient to render it DSFG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk firstname.lastname@example.org | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Description: PGP signature