Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:58:04 +0000, Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> You have a point about attributions and copyright notices -- but
>> for the most part these are source issues (apart from not deleting
>> interactive copyright notices). So no, I do not think that any of
>> these give invariant sections a free pass.
> I don't think it gets a free pass either. What I do think is that
> the issue is not so clear cut as people are making it out to be.
> "We expect everything to be modifiable" is a nice slogan, except
> that in reality, it means "we expect everything to be modifiable,
> except these several bits in the source tree, and well, that bit in
> the binary object over there, and maybe some others".
I think I see it differently. License texts are not part of
the Work. By extention, copyright notices in the code are again,
akin, and vastly different from invariant sections in the binary.
The GPL preservation of interactive copyright notices is
explicitly mentioned. I would not be opposed to having us explicitly
mention the GFDL, and change the SC/DFSG either.
manoj
--
Time is fluid ... like a river with currents, eddies, backwash. Spock,
"The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0
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: