Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue"): > [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this > discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on > modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being > distributed in Debian against the Social Contract. This concern DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. It needs to be IGNORED.You seem to be saying that a violation of the social contract should be ignored. My response to that is that where there is a violation, the social contract and actual practice are out of sync, and one or the other (or both) needs to be changed. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify.
AFAICT, THERE IS NO VIOLATION!Where a licence text accompanies a package it must, as a matter of law, be unchangeable.
To take the GPL as an example, where it is not being used as a licence, the FSF *HAS* granted you the right to modify it, so there is no problem (as regards Debian and *COPYRIGHT*).
The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's pre-ramble (sic :-). As far as the names go, that's trademark not copyright, and as far as RMS's ramble, to include that would be to mis-represent Richard. If that's not against the Social Contract, it should be.
Where's the problem? There may be a problem with other licences, but as I see it, there is no problem with the GPL (which is being used as an example of this alleged problem). AIUI, the OP is confusing the unmodifiability of the licence as a matter of licencing law, and the default unmodifiability imposed by copyright law (which doesn't apply to the GPL, because RMS/FSF have granted permission to modify it, so long as you don't break trademark or "passing off" laws in the process).
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk