[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> While we ship the text of the GPL, we'll be shipping content that's not
> 100% free. [...]

Please not that old myth!

  Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
    You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license
    provided that you call your license by another name and do not include
    the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use
    at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not
    mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
  -- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

If you want to fix that "not 100% free", then fix a bug against base-files
to remove the preamble and modify the tail.  The resulting licence will
have the same terms as the GPL (so GPL'd software could be distributed
under it) and name change clauses are fine for the DFSG, right?

I think there are more pressing bugs to deal with, but it's your choice.

> If you consider our ideals to be the original social contract, applied
> to programs not images and firmware, we've been meeting and improving
> upon our ideals every year and every release.

Can you support the claim that the original SC wasn't intended to cover
everything on the CD?  Am I misunderstanding your claim?

> My original mail was a bit strong, so I'm not really surprised. It's
> hard not to get worked up about this after so long, at least for me.

Please, everyone, instead of getting 'worked up', try to explain and
give references to support arguments when appropriate.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: