On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:30:20 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Simon Law:
>> That's because all these people are using it acceptable. But that
>> doesn't mean that our logo is _free software_. For reference,
>> please read the debian-legal thread I linked to.
> To me the argument falls flat here before it even starts: the
> logotype isn't software, and can't be treated as such, even less
> than documentation can be treated as software (which also is quite
> an absurd notion).
Software, as the scope of the DFSG, is everything in the
"Work" that is not hardware or wetware.
> What's up next, claiming that the names of authors and package
> maintainers are software, and that they are freely changeable by
> anyone? And license statements?
There are laws governing slander and misrepresentation; you do
not need special protection to save you from that. Why should I not
be able to take Plato's republic, change somethings around, and call
it Manoj's republic?
The license is special; in that it is what grants us the right
to use the work; and sits separately from the work itself. We are
also required, under the law, to distribute the license as such, or
lose our right to distribute the works at all.
manoj
--
"You tried it just for once, found it alright for kicks, but now you
find out you have a habit that sticks, you're an orgasm addict, you're
always at it, and you're an orgasm addict." The Buzzcocks
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
