Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, consider DFSG ยง10: > The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of > licenses that we consider "free". > > Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification > (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the preamble is removed > and the license is renamed and all references to its original name > are removed [0]). Why would the DFSG need an "exception" or > "clarification" when it already says that such a license is ok?
Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free, because they do not have those same freedoms. -- \ "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though | `\ nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is." -- | _o__) Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
