On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (I'm also not convinced that DFSG#10 talks about the text of the license > rather than the terms. I tend to find that as DFSG#10 is so vague, doesn't > actually place any requirements on freedom, and that there is nothing > approaching consensus as to what it means, that it's best ignored.)
Then that's probably the root of our disagreement (if, in fact, you are disagreeing with me). DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we consider free. This true, even though the GPL contains the following statements: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. and You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. The rest of your argument seems based on ignoring this issue. [Of course the license has more to say -- for example, you can also copy and distribute derived works if you meet some additional requirements. But this, I think, shows that the mere fact that a license can't be changed doesn't cause it to violate the DFSG.] -- Raul
