Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Fabian Fagerholm <email@example.com> writes:
> Also, consider DFSG §10:
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of
> licenses that we consider "free".
> Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
> (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the preamble is removed
> and the license is renamed and all references to its original name
> are removed ). Why would the DFSG need an "exception" or
> "clarification" when it already says that such a license is ok?
Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
because they do not have those same freedoms.
\ "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though |
`\ nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is." -- |
_o__) Albert Einstein |