On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Also, you could, if you wanted, include the entire unmodified GPL and > add an introductory section that changes the meaning or what follows.
Like Guile does. That's the Right Way to Do it. Okay, I admit it, I can't find any examples of actually illegal GPL-ripoffs, just plenty of "inspired by", like MPL (or anything with "PL" in it) which is legal. Though, these examples certainly show why some people would want to be able to modify licenses. I think that the drawbacks of allowing modified versions of the GPL are far greater than the advantages, which is why I don't mind that the GPL only allows verbatim copying of itself. My main point is that there are things that aren't DFSG-free, and that, as long as it isn't things like software, fonts or documentation, it's fine. Like background images and datafiles for games - they could have a license saying it's okay to change the format of them, but not to make any "artistic" changes. Sure, that'd wouldn't be as good than totally free, but it's free enough. I even think I can recall RMS saying something to that extent (not to imply that he is an ever-correct god, but I find that he often, not always, has good things to say). So my suggestion stands. It would be a good thing to have DFSG, DFAIG (art/information) and DFDD (documentation). The DFAIG should allow free verbatim distribution and freely 'changing formats', eg. svg to png or dvi to xml. It should encourage people to allow modification of content as well, but not require it. (The DFAIG would apply to things like licenses and books.) The DFDD should require that modification of technical things is allowed. Sunnanvind (sitting in the library, having a dizzy fit as I write this, apologies for any grammar errors).