Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net> writes:

> Also, consider DFSG §10:
>         The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of
>         licenses that we consider "free".
>
> Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
> (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the preamble is removed
> and the license is renamed and all references to its original name
> are removed [0]). Why would the DFSG need an "exception" or
> "clarification" when it already says that such a license is ok?

Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
because they do not have those same freedoms.

-- 
 \        "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though |
  `\      nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is."  -- |
_o__)                                                  Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney