Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation. > For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly > troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code > is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have > worked to prevent that by using the copyright on their licence text > and I don't think that's unreasonable.
I can see that preventing license proliferation (especially closely-similar but incompatible licenses) is a motivation for discouraging changes to the license text. > The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is. This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian against the Social Contract. -- \ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\ that's even remotely true!" -- Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
