Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Fabian Fagerholm <email@example.com> writes:
> The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
> doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered "free". It says that
> the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no
disagreement on this?
> The only sensible conclusion of this is that the Social Contract and
> DFSG do not require meta-licenses to fulfil the same requirements as
> those required for software licenses. (Careful reading will reveal
> that they consider licenses to be a different class of entity than
> software, as I wrote in my previous post.)
> The requested GR proposed to say something along these
> lines. However, it already follows from the current wording
As discussed, I don't think it does follow; it deserves an explicit
> As far as the GR request goes, I think it has been shown quite
> strongly that it is not needed.
I believe I've rebutted many of these attempts to dismiss the need for
this, and feel all the more strongly that the change is needed.
\ "I used to be a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright |