Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 controversies? 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 rebutted. Regards, -- 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]
