In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a
* Ian Jackson:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
worked to
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that
the license texts which have
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a
5 matches
Mail list logo
