Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josip Rodin <email@example.com> writes:
> > Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
> > do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
> > also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of the
> > document seriously.
> I don't see how that's at all true. Contrariwise, I would hope you
> agree that a document that says "we will always do this, and never do
> that", but which is routinely violated in practice, is one that
> readers will not take seriously.
Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts" to
be "violating the social contract". I don't think anyone ever will
consider that to be the case, either.
Like people have said before: this is pointless nitpicking. I hope this
never gets to vote; I don't want to be considered part of a bunch of
crazy fanatics, which is exactly what we'll be if it does.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4