Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: >>The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian >>applicant: >> >>>5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily >>>discussed on debian-legal recently. Read >>>http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and >>>briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed >>>under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might >>>be for Debian. >> >>Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand > the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. > > That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is > cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up > to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just > be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have > little desire to scrutinize licenses? There is a big difference between saying "there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just be free.", and saying "despite there being licenses and copyrights, we should ignore them". I agree with the former, but not the latter. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature