Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Easy. DFSG ?3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
> neither source not binary. [...]
If it wasn't software, it couldn't be in the distribution - we have no
way to distribute non-software. Why the blazes merge two unrelated
I remain of the opinion that this GR would be pointless because even if
we were permitted by licences to modify the licences, we are prevented
by copyright law and our promises from modifying any relevant licences.
We would still be open to accusations of untruthfulness, except maybe
if we pasted all copyright laws into our foundation documents, so users
know the limits on our promises.
Contrary to claims, I don't feel this essential pointlessness has been
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct