Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG > doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered "free". It says that > the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered > "free".
The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a work. The license, applied to another work, is free. The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no disagreement on this? > The only sensible conclusion of this is that the Social Contract and > DFSG do not require meta-licenses to fulfil the same requirements as > those required for software licenses. (Careful reading will reveal > that they consider licenses to be a different class of entity than > software, as I wrote in my previous post.) > > The requested GR proposed to say something along these > lines. However, it already follows from the current wording As discussed, I don't think it does follow; it deserves an explicit mention. > As far as the GR request goes, I think it has been shown quite > strongly that it is not needed. I believe I've rebutted many of these attempts to dismiss the need for this, and feel all the more strongly that the change is needed. -- \ "I used to be a narrator for bad mimes." -- Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
