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

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing



On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:18:45 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

> A: It is included because this text contains the terms under which
> many components of a Debian system are distributed. Debian is legally
> required, then, to inform of these terms to the receiver of the
> components ? the only way is including the text in the Debian system
> itself.

Here I don't know if it's me that sees it wrong or that symbol is really
a question mark...
I would do

  s/components \? the/components: the/

> 
> Take into account, however, that:
> 
>    1. According to the FSF (copyright holder on the text of the GPL)
>    you're
> actually allowed to modify the text of the GPL and create a derivative
> work

Perhaps it's clearer if you say "derived license" rather than
"derivative work".

Otherwise someone could misunderstand the sentence and think that you
are allowed to take a work under the GPL, create a derivative work and
release it under a modified-GPL.
We all know that this is false, but some people tend to get easily
confused as soon as we start to talk about metalicenses (i.e. licenses
for the text of other licenses) ...

> if you remove the preamble and you do not call the results
> "General Public License" (reference:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL)
>    2. Actually, if no works in Debian were covered under the GPL,
>    Debian
> would not distribute the text of the GPL by itself.

And that's guaranteed!  ;-)


-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpkgX0oJ5o7S.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: