-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/13/07 10:01, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:57 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >> On 09/13/07 02:45, Josselin Mouette wrote: >>> Le mercredi 12 septembre 2007 à 16:51 +0200, Romain Beauxis a écrit : >>>> It often start with "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and it' clearly >>>> written: " Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim >>>> copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." >>>> >>>> Shouldn't we garantee the right for our users to modify LICENCEs ?? >>> This common belief that the GPL text itself is non-free is unfounded. >>> >>> Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? You can use the >>> GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you >>> call your license by another name and do not include the GPL >>> preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end >>> enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU >>> (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar). >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > >> Paraphrasing Luk Claes: >> besides we as Debian only want our users the freedom to be able to >> if they wanted it, to willy-nilly modify the GPL text. > > They can, as long as they publish it under a new name.
Great. We agree. In that case, what's with Luk's desire for the "freedom" to hack RFC 1725 yet still call it RFC 1725? If I modify /Alice In Wonderland/, should I be able to call it /Alice In Wonderland/? (Might be a bad example, since it's PD.) >> Quoting Mirim Ruiz: >> What about ... changing the format or structure for clarifying, or >> even fixing typos? > > Sure, as long as you change the name of the result and call it > Rons General Public License. > > There is also a pragmatic distinction: License textsembody the > permission under which we can distribute the software; RFC's do not. > We can't retroactively change the license terms we distribute the > software under; so hacking up a license, under law, would mean we can > not distribute the result. That one point of law makes a critical, > pragmatic difference; so a Work, and the terms of the licesne which > grants us the right to modify and distribute the work, have to be > treated differently -- or else we have no distribution. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG6WZDS9HxQb37XmcRAsDbAKDHDdC3uZ15On39xvEO+NTjKKgF0ACfUOKR TV49hK9S3RPAhef78vxr4Zw= =kxOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
