|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > April 2004 > License texts with invariant sections
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
License texts with invariant sections
|
|
| Herbert Xu 2004-04-28, 7:33 am |
| Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not arguing that this should change. I don't think there would be any
> gain in that; it would increase the confusion level substantially (license
> discussions get confusing enough without bringing meta-licenses into it!),
> and it would only increase license proliferation.
Here's an interesting thought. Suppose that we make such an exception
explicit that license texts are allowed to contain invariant sections.
Now what if I create a new license text and embed software documentation
inside it with cover text saying that the license text must be distributed
as a whole with no modifications?
Will you allow software that is distributed with this license to enter
main? If not then can you come up with a rule that is not ad hoc to
distinguish licenses such as these from the GPL?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andrew Suffield 2004-04-28, 8:34 am |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:57:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting thought. Suppose that we make such an exception
> explicit that license texts are allowed to contain invariant sections.
>
> Now what if I create a new license text and embed software documentation
> inside it with cover text saying that the license text must be distributed
> as a whole with no modifications?
>
> Will you allow software that is distributed with this license to enter
> main? If not then can you come up with a rule that is not ad hoc to
> distinguish licenses such as these from the GPL?
We're not obliged to accept something just because it passes the rules
as written. Our defence against attempts like this to exploit
loopholes has always been "Don't be a prat".
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
| |
| John Hasler 2004-04-28, 9:34 am |
| Herbert Xu writes:
> Here's an interesting thought. Suppose that we make such an exception
> explicit that license texts are allowed to contain invariant sections.
> Now what if I create a new license text and embed software documentation
> inside it with cover text saying that the license text must be
> distributed as a whole with no modifications?
We will look at the thing, say "That's not a license", and refuse it.
> Will you allow software that is distributed with this license to enter
> main? If not then can you come up with a rule that is not ad hoc to
> distinguish licenses such as these from the GPL?
Yes. Common sense. The DFSG is not a computer program that must blindly
churn through to a logical conclusion no matter how ludicrous. It is a set
of legalistic rules and, like a law, should be interpreted in the context
of the case at hand, relevant precedent, and the intent of it's authors.
It is not necessary to have rules that can be applied clearly and
unambiguously to every unforseen circumstance. This is fortunate, since it
is not possible.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Zenaan Harkness 2004-04-28, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 23:09, John Hasler wrote:
> Herbert Xu writes:
>
>
> We will look at the thing, say "That's not a license", and refuse it.
>
>
> Yes. Common sense. The DFSG is not a computer program that must blindly
> churn through to a logical conclusion no matter how ludicrous. It is a set
> of legalistic rules and, like a law, should be interpreted in the context
> of the case at hand, relevant precedent, and the intent of it's authors.
> It is not necessary to have rules that can be applied clearly and
> unambiguously to every unforseen circumstance. This is fortunate, since it
> is not possible.
So how big can a preamble get (assuming here that "philosophical
documentation" comes under Debian's new definition of software)?
zen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Nathanael Nerode 2004-04-30, 1:33 am |
| Herbert Xu wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting thought. Suppose that we make such an exception
> explicit that license texts are allowed to contain invariant sections.
>
> Now what if I create a new license text and embed software documentation
> inside it with cover text saying that the license text must be distributed
> as a whole with no modifications?
OK....
> Will you allow software that is distributed with this license to enter
> main?
Well, OK, until we manage to figure out how to distribute licenses outside
of the packages they go with while still always distributing them.
But the license must only appear in the usr/share/doc/*/copyright file or
the /usr/share/common-licenses directory, and nowhere else. :-)
> If not then can you come up with a rule that is not ad hoc to
> distinguish licenses such as these from the GPL?
Well, there's always "Would Debian be able to function without stuff under
this license?" In the case of the GPL, the answer is probably 'no',
because of the shortage of BSD-licensed alternatives to GCC.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|