Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Previously Ben Pfaff wrote: > > No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files. > > Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file > > formats would be in violation of copyright. > > We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop this thread, I > think all arguments have been made and in the end we'll just have to > wait what comes out of Ian's discussion with Corel.
Maybe Ian/Debian/GNU should clarify how Debian/GNU code is licensed and intended to be used. It'd be a lot easier for some of us if there was a statement saying what can and can't be done with Debian/GNU. I'd never have imagined that distributing a non-GPL'ed shell script or other such frontend for dpkg was unacceptable and I've been reading about the GPL for a long time. I wouldn't want to fall into that kind of trap by mistake. Do please consider using a more explicit license if GPL keeps causing all these misunderstandings. Or go the way of Linus Torvalds and expand on what you think the GPL grants or not (/usr/src/linux/COPYING). I don't see why you shouldn't, unless you do want to fool or confuse people. Navin, who has been using and installing Debian/GNU too damned recklessly.
