Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. [...] > > Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking > > at licences, but software is the thing of interest. > > [...] 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 think we have seen too many "check each case" licences to call it rare. There are also some licences which make software non-free if some of their options are exercised. > 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. [...] I don't believe calling something abstractly "free" is helpful, nor calling a *licence* rather than a work "DFSG-free". At worst, the ambiguity of that jargon is unhelpful when discussing this with the rest of the world. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]