On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most > > license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be > > shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying. > > Most? I thought most licence texts were covered by themselves, being > shipped as part of the software, but we can't modify the ones shipped > in debian because we need to accurately pass on the permissions given > to users.
That's an interpretation I've never heard before. I'm not convinced that it would hold up in court... > > AFAIK, the few which have different terms for modifying the licence > rather than the rest of the software (such as the GPL) come with > explicit permission to modify. The GNU GPL is perhaps the most notably and non-negligible example of license having a meta-license[1] very different from itself. [1] hereafter the term "meta-license" means license for a license text The GNU GPL v2 starts up as follows: | GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | Version 2, June 1991 | | Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. | 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA | Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies | of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. | | Preamble [...] This is clearly structured as * title * version * copyright notice * meta-license (which clearly forbids modifications) * preamble * ... Separately from this accompanying meta-license, the FSF has stated[2] that you can modify the terms of the GNU GPL in order to create a derived license. But this grant of permission has a name-change requirement (which, BTW, is DFSG-free, but GPL-incompatible!), some consistency requirements for the instructions-for-use (I didn't think hard to check whether they meet the DFSG) and a requirement to not mention GNU in those instructions (mmmh, smells as non-free!). Moreover, you _must_ purge the preamble: there's no permission to modify it, in any way; there's not even the permission to keep it bundled with your license derived from the GPL! [2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > > Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; [...] > > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but I've > usually disagreed with them. I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2 preamble from Debian main. As a consequence, you have to purge every GPLv2 licensed package from Debian main, since you cannot distribute a GPLv2 licensed work, without accompanying it with a copy of the GPLv2 text (see GPLv2, section 1). I'm not sure a Debian OS could survive this kind of "cleaning" from GPL'd packages, at present: I would say it cannot survive, since at least a toolchain for C and C++ is needed... :-( > > We don't need this exception. It would allow another way for people > to argue for including non-free software in debian ('but it's part of > the licence'), just like some use the current non-free logo licences > to argue for inclusion of their non-free logos. I'm afraid you need it, even though I would be much happier should I be proved wrong! ;-) -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/etch_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian etch installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpeEQY9kAyNp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
