> > 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), it is
> not obvious that "free" has the same meaning. And it is not obvious that the
> GPL is the best licence for these.
>
> 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 you to
> use another name... which the GPL does not require for software.
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. :>
-Kysh
--
-> 1988 Black Kawasaki EX500 ('Yarf!') <street>
-> FAA licensed private pilot
-> Unix system administrator, was WebTV Networks, now jobhunting!
