On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 03:23:00PM -0700, William Ballard wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:12:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > The fact that non-free license texts are allowed in main does not imply > > that every other bit of non-free software must be allowed in, too. > > When I brought up the fact that the GPL was non-modifiable everyone > rolled their eyes and said "this question is dead and buried, read the > archives." Why is it being brought up again? Why aren't people just > bein referred to the archives, why is there any discussion at all?
I don't think the archives address my question of license texts vs. terms. I personally don't care; I'm only giving that particular argument as a counterargument to "license texts *must* be unmodifiable", which I think is false. I havn't seen any disagreement or counters, but that may be only because people don't care. There's no question that license texts are an acceptable exception, and I don't particularly care whether it's left implicit or made explicit (though I'm opposed to the idea of adding text to the SC for the sole purpose of stopping a few threads). "License modifiability" has no relationship whatsoever to firmware blobs or documentation. -- Glenn Maynard
