Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. > > > > > > e.g. doc-rfc ? > > > > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this > > doesn't mean ... > > Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified except by the > holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to > meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted. You have misunderstood me, I think, and your reasoning is incorrect. Obviously you can't just redistribute someone else's program with a modified licence, but you might want to distribute your own program with a modified version of the GPL. But the first paragraph of the GPL forbids that; you would have to write your own licence from scratch. Most licences do not have a notice saying whether the licence itself may be modified and redistributed, but most licences are short enough that probably nobody cares. The GPL, on the other hand, is a significant work in its own right (nearly 3000 words), and it does have its own copyright notice, in the first paragraph. The GPL is not itself licensed under a free software licence. Edmund
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. > > > > > > e.g. doc-rfc ? > > > > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this > > doesn't mean ... > > Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified except by the > holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to > meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted. You have misunderstood me, I think, and your reasoning is incorrect. Obviously you can't just redistribute someone else's program with a modified licence, but you might want to distribute your own program with a modified version of the GPL. But the first paragraph of the GPL forbids that; you would have to write your own licence from scratch. Most licences do not have a notice saying whether the licence itself may be modified and redistributed, but most licences are short enough that probably nobody cares. The GPL, on the other hand, is a significant work in its own right (nearly 3000 words), and it does have its own copyright notice, in the first paragraph. The GPL is not itself licensed under a free software licence. Edmund -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are > > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at > > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were > > > put there knowing that) > > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. > > e.g. doc-rfc ? The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this doesn't mean ... Edmund
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are > > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at > > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were > > > put there knowing that) > > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. > > e.g. doc-rfc ? The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this doesn't mean ... Edmund -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
