Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 03:23:00PM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:12:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > The fact that non-free license texts are allowed in main does not imply
> > that every other bit of non-free software must be allowed in, too.
> When I brought up the fact that the GPL was non-modifiable everyone
> rolled their eyes and said "this question is dead and buried, read the
> archives." Why is it being brought up again? Why aren't people just
> bein referred to the archives, why is there any discussion at all?
I don't think the archives address my question of license texts vs. terms.
I personally don't care; I'm only giving that particular argument as a
counterargument to "license texts *must* be unmodifiable", which I think
is false. I havn't seen any disagreement or counters, but that may be
only because people don't care.
There's no question that license texts are an acceptable exception, and I
don't particularly care whether it's left implicit or made explicit (though
I'm opposed to the idea of adding text to the SC for the sole purpose of
stopping a few threads). "License modifiability" has no relationship
whatsoever to firmware blobs or documentation.