Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...]
> Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
> license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
> shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
Most? I thought most licence texts were covered by themselves, being
shipped as part of the software, but we can't modify the ones shipped
in debian because we need to accurately pass on the permissions given
AFAIK, the few which have different terms for modifying the licence
rather than the rest of the software (such as the GPL) come with explicit
permission to modify.
> Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; [...]
Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but I've
usually disagreed with them.
We don't need this exception. It would allow another way for people
to argue for including non-free software in debian ('but it's part of
the licence'), just like some use the current non-free logo licences
to argue for inclusion of their non-free logos.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct