What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-03-30 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
[Thread sent to debian-legal.] On Monday 29 March 1999, at 21 h 31, the keyboard of Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > altered? :> > Does this mean

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-03-30 Thread Dragon
> > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > > altered? :> > > Does this mean we have to move the GPL out of main? ;> > > The GPL (and the DFSG, by the way) stands for software. For other stuff > (documentation, literary work, art, standards, licences themselves),

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-03-30 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Remember the discussion on debian-legal a few days ago about the W3C > standards? > It makes sense to limit modifications on a standard. At the very least, if you > modify and redistribute the GPL, it makes sense to force yo

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-03-30 Thread Raul Miller
Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that I'm not subscribed to Debian-legal... You cannot edit the > GPL and call it something else, nor can you take pieces out of it. The > GPL has full copyright.. you can only copy it verbatim. :> Then again, [I've been told, repeatedly, though not actually

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-01 Thread Chip Salzenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > altered? :> Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's a license, and license text is not prote

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-02 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 05:33:54PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs > > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > > altered? :> > > Of course the license can be alte

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-02 Thread John Hasler
Chip Salzenberg writes: > Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's a > license,... It's every bit as creative as a program. > ... and license text is not protected by copyright. I've seen this claim made many times. Citations, please. -- John Hasler

Re: What does "free" means for a licence or a standard? (Was: Intent to package xmemos

1999-04-03 Thread Dragon
> > Has it occurred to anyone that the GPL isn't DFSG free? :> Not programs > > licensed under it, but the license itself, which cannot be modified or > > altered? :> > > Of course the license can be altered. It's not a creative work, it's > a license, and license text is not protected by copyrig