On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's > always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification > scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should > die messily. Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking > at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
I disagree. d-legal should concentrate on the licenses. The software it's applied to is very rarely relevant to the freeness question; it's the license that makes the software free or not. Copyright holders, can create the unusual situation of a work being free or not free in disagreement with the license on its own, due to statements of intent--but that's the rare exception, and rarely a good situation (say what you mean in the license to begin with). I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Maybe I'll understand if you relate this back to the original topic. I don't believe a document placed under the GFDL, with no invariant sections, is free. You can look at it from the license, or by taking document under the GFDL and looking at the resulting freedoms, and the conclusion doesn't change. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]