Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in >> non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses >> or other documents of perceived legal relevance. > > I have argued on debian-legal that licenses as applied to specific works > that are part of the Debian OS (meaning, "in main") are permitted to be > non-modifiable, for the same reason that the copyright notices > themselves are permitted to be non-modifiable.
This is a strawman, about one third of the GPL is not the actual permission notice, and these parts already required updates. > (Yes, I know that we ship it in a way you might think is "of itself" in > base-files. You'd be right if we didn't have other packages' copyright > files refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, but we do.) Does this take into account that there are multiple versions of the GPL v2 floating around which aren't bit-wise identical? (I'm just curious, I don't think it really makes a difference as these changes are not part of the permission notice.)
