On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
> out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
> a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
> because they do not have those same
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
> doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered "free". It says that
> the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
> "free".
The context of that statement is th
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither so
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 unrela
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
> work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
>
> The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
> work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surel
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
