On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the > > > licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;" > > > > It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically > > being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being > > distributed. [IE, in debian/copyright or specifically included by > > reference from there.] > > > > For example, a second copy of the GPL in a package under the GPL would > > not be acceptable, nor would a copy of the GPL in a package not under > > the GPL. > > I presume the distinction you're making there is between license > texts that are already distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses/ > and license texts that aren't.
I'm not making such a distinction. The actual location in which the license is distributed does not matter. All that matters is that it is a license being used as a legal document under which a work in Debian is being distributed. It cannot be a license whose removal or abridgement would have no legal effect upon the work in which it is distributed. [I would argue as well that its removal cannot have a functional effect on the work either.] Don Armstrong -- What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
