Re: {SPAM} Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> said:
> Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> foundation documents consider the GPL a free license.
I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by
Russ). I have also been re-reading the SC/DFSG, and the time they
were written. I also started with the idea that the SC/DFSG are to
be considered to be consistent, unless strong evidence exists to the
contrary.
So, the DFSG are what they say they are --
guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be
de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines,
hence explicitly naming the GPL and the bsd licenses. The naming
them specifically removes the requirement that they meet all the
guidelines.
But this does not automatically mean that the dispensation
offered to the GPL automatically extends to any other license -- we
would need to list any licenses like that explicitly, or modify the
guidelines to not conflict.
Besides, not removing a copyright notification already present
is a different kettle of fish from invariant sections.
manoj
--
Cure the disease and kill the patient. Francis Bacon
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: