On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:12:51PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and > understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording. > At least I suggest to change "A copyright holder is permitted to withhold > permission to..." to "A license need not grant permission to...". This > way it talks about licenses just like the DFSG does, and it has fewer > inversions of meaning.
I was attempting to write carefully and defensively, having just weathered a month's worth of 2nd-degree burns. I welcome changes that make my meaning clearer without sacrificing meaning. > > Permission must be granted to include or exclude the text of the > > license in alternative formats or duplicate copies, as long as at > > least one copy of each applicable license text accompanies the work > > as part of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution. > > What does this mean in practice? I know of no license that explicitly > grants or withholds such permission. Remember a few months ago when RMS accused Debian of violating the GPL by not shipping a copy in each and every .deb? > I would also support a variant that allows some non-modifiable text, > as long as it is [insert definition of non-technical], and as long > as it can be removed. That way, we can distribute editorial text > (such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact the > freeness of the work it accompanies. I proposed this to RMS. He doesn't want to grant permission for the GNU Manifesto be removed. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpY7zBuW6gwg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
