> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:56:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > The importance of the argument is not license texts at all. As I've said, I > don't really care about license texts in main; if somebody thinks it's a > problem, they can go ahead and try to fix it. > > The importance is that the word "program" in the DFSG not be used as an > excuse to ignore much of the DFSG for documentation and other things that > aren't "programs". I think there's a clear consensus that the entire DFSG > applies to all software, including documentation; a large point of 2004_003, > to my understanding, was to confirm this officially. As long as you don't think that immutable software licenses are excluded by the DFSG -- and you seem to be saying that you think they are ok -- I think we can consider ourselves to be in rough agreement. -- Raul
