[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: snippets

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> writes:
> > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
> Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?

Not necessarily, for two reasons:

1) Some number of them are explicitly non-modifiable, including removal.

2) This is one of the cases in which we are *most* likely to run into an
upstream who has a differing license interpretation. Many of the potential
interpretations would cause problems. Therefore, we cannot assume (once
someone has raised it as an issue) that a questionable-but-borderline
license of some sort is, in fact, "just fine" (I'd think it would still
be safe to assume that a license that explicitly applies to all files,
which has everything we need, would normally be cause for closing the
bug *unless* it was asserted that the author has different views about a
specific file - in which case, well, we should talk to them).

After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Sections in a GDFL work are
secondary, by definition (and, frankly, usually by practice) - if the FSF
doesn't want to allow their removal, much less modification, why should we
assume that Joe Random Author who explicitly puts a protective license on
it is actually fine with it being removed, but not modified?

And if it can be neither, then we're right back to the GFDL debate (ugh).
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgp5rMQoFzXJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: