Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Don Armstrong wrote:
>I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
>specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
>specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
>may be worth some thought.
>Unfortunatly, the currently proposed amendment does not
>disambiguate between license texts in their capacity as a license under
>which a work is distribute and random text which is labelled as a
Oops. My bad. It was definitely supposed to. The text was:
"(There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
documents associated with works in Debian;"
I guess "associated with" is too vague.
"There is a special exception for the texts of the licenses under which
works in Debian are distributed;"
(Incidentally, given the number of important wordsmithing comments
people have made, please nobody actually propose a GR until it's been
through the peer-editing wringer.)