On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm> wrote: [...]
> > Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
> > license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
> > shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
>
> Most? I thought most licence texts were covered by themselves, being
> shipped as part of the software, but we can't modify the ones shipped
> in debian because we need to accurately pass on the permissions given
> to users.
That's an interpretation I've never heard before.
I'm not convinced that it would hold up in court...
>
> AFAIK, the few which have different terms for modifying the licence
> rather than the rest of the software (such as the GPL) come with
> explicit permission to modify.
The GNU GPL is perhaps the most notably and non-negligible example of
license having a meta-license[1] very different from itself.
[1] hereafter the term "meta-license" means license for a license text
The GNU GPL v2 starts up as follows:
| GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
| Version 2, June 1991
|
| Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
| Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
| of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
|
| Preamble
[...]
This is clearly structured as
* title
* version
* copyright notice
* meta-license (which clearly forbids modifications)
* preamble
* ...
Separately from this accompanying meta-license, the FSF has stated[2]
that you can modify the terms of the GNU GPL in order to create a
derived license.
But this grant of permission has a name-change requirement (which, BTW,
is DFSG-free, but GPL-incompatible!), some consistency requirements for
the instructions-for-use (I didn't think hard to check whether they meet
the DFSG) and a requirement to not mention GNU in those instructions
(mmmh, smells as non-free!).
Moreover, you _must_ purge the preamble: there's no permission to modify
it, in any way; there's not even the permission to keep it bundled with
your license derived from the GPL!
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> > Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; [...]
>
> Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but I've
> usually disagreed with them.
I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2 preamble
from Debian main. As a consequence, you have to purge every GPLv2
licensed package from Debian main, since you cannot distribute a GPLv2
licensed work, without accompanying it with a copy of the GPLv2 text
(see GPLv2, section 1). I'm not sure a Debian OS could survive this
kind of "cleaning" from GPL'd packages, at present: I would say it
cannot survive, since at least a toolchain for C and C++ is needed...
:-(
>
> We don't need this exception. It would allow another way for people
> to argue for including non-free software in debian ('but it's part of
> the licence'), just like some use the current non-free logo licences
> to argue for inclusion of their non-free logos.
I'm afraid you need it, even though I would be much happier should I be
proved wrong! ;-)
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html
Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpjGcFfvUkVO.pgp
Description: PGP signature