On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages > of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the > reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds? There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference card. Furthermore, licenses are something that we are generally pragmatic about, so long as the terms of the license don't unreasonably restrict where you can put the license.[1] A similar issue has come up recently on -devel[2] regarding single files downloaded out of a tarball or a cvs repository. Hopefully it's clear that making the license available by reference is sufficient to allow people to download single files from a cvs repository. [EG, we don't have to append the GPL to every file downloaded.] > An interpretation of the rules which would lead to rejecting any of > thee licenses is the wrong interpretation. I don't think we've yet made a consensus interpretation which rejects either of these three licenses. If you feel we have, it's likely that you haven't understood our interpretation correctly, or we haven't made it clear. Don Armstrong 1: That is, the license shouldn't require that it be inline with all files distributed, require itself to be agreed to everytime the program is run, shown on every program invocation, or some other ridiculous restriction. 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200309/msg00782.html -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpha3bW1IYKh.pgp
Description: PGP signature