Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Johan Walles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't >> >> even enough for non-free. > >> > Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why >> > this would be so? > >> Because Debian would have signed it, > > There is nothing in the phrase "a Debian-specific" licence that > implies that anything has been signed by Debian (whatever that means).
Um. While true, that has the wrong causality. That Debian has a license only because it has somehow signed something *does* imply that it's a Debian-specific license. > An unilateral declaration saying "I hereby allow my program Foomatic > to be distributed in source and binary from by all Debian mirrors" is > a Debian-specific license. It is perfectly good for non-free even if > it is light-years from contrib or mein. That would make me very nervous, as a mirror operator. But OK. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
