On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:25:47 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: [...] > As others in this thread have pointed out, Debian explicitly omits > classifying license fulltexts as "free software" or "non-free software".
Frankly speaking, I cannot find a message in this thread where others pointed out that license texts are not software. But anyway... > > As I understand it, you personally classify license fulltexts as > "non-free software" and then add a rule that they are exceptionally > accepted in main under specific narrow circumstances. > > If you agree with above, Francesco, then I suggest going forward that we > talk about the "license fulltexts are non-free software but accepted > narrowly in main" as being a _proposal_ rather than current rules in > Debian. Actually, I have always thought this as the accepted Debian practice, not as a proposal of mine! The already cited [message by Glenn Maynard] shows that other people viewed it that way back in 2005. [message by Glenn Maynard]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00299.html> I am quite convinced that the same idea has been expressed on debian-legal more than once, since 2004 (the time when I became an active participant). It's just not easy to search for the evidence, since searching for keywords such as "license" and "exception" on the debian-legal archive results in an overwhelming number of false positives (where the topic under discussion was the GNU GPL and appropriate linking exceptions, e.g. to allow linking a GPL-licensed work with the OpenSSL library!). > > Perhaps that shift might also help you being less perplexed? :-) No, I am even more perplexed, after reading your reply... :-/ -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpM5_ztxgwnF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
