On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:02:34PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and > > distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still). > > Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
Not necessarily, for two reasons:
1) Some number of them are explicitly non-modifiable, including removal.
2) This is one of the cases in which we are *most* likely to run into an
upstream who has a differing license interpretation. Many of the potential
interpretations would cause problems. Therefore, we cannot assume (once
someone has raised it as an issue) that a questionable-but-borderline
license of some sort is, in fact, "just fine" (I'd think it would still
be safe to assume that a license that explicitly applies to all files,
which has everything we need, would normally be cause for closing the
bug *unless* it was asserted that the author has different views about a
specific file - in which case, well, we should talk to them).
After all, to tie threads... all Invariant Sections in a GDFL work are
secondary, by definition (and, frankly, usually by practice) - if the FSF
doesn't want to allow their removal, much less modification, why should we
assume that Joe Random Author who explicitly puts a protective license on
it is actually fine with it being removed, but not modified?
And if it can be neither, then we're right back to the GFDL debate (ugh).
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
pgpOwJDBgit3U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
