On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:19:54PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply > > doesn't, well, work. > The GPL can be a work, but we are using it (primarily) in the context > of a license, as opposed to a mere work. Like copyright statements, > valid licenses[1] are legal documents which cannot be modified by > anyone save the copyright holder of a work.
You can't modify the GPL to create a new, derivative license because the FSF say you can't. You can't apply a new license, whether based on the GPL or developed from scratch to an existing work because you're not the copyright owner. The first is a problem as far as DFSG-freedom is concerned, the latter isn't. Neither is a problem for Debian, unless you start insisting that we're betraying our principles to even consider including anything non-free no matter what it's form under pool/main. > As far as licenses included as a mere work, There's nothing "mere" about works; nor does it make a lot of sense to treat licenses differently when they cover a free work to when they're included in the package for other reasons (namely, they benefit users of the package in some way, such as serving as an example). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
