On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:17:28PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > Licenses cannot be themselves free and still mean anything. They're legal > > documents and as such need to be unchanging. The correct solution is to > > let it be. > > [ Playing devils advocate for a minute.. ] > > But wouldn't the GPL have the same protections if it's license said it could > be modified, but only if you didn't claim the resulting license was the GPL? Sure---but could you convince RMS this was a good thing to add to the GPL? I suspect his response on the matter might be something close to an answer he gave unclean at ALS in 1998... And even if a derived work based on the GPL were legal, the GPL used on applications under it could not be change which would kinda IMO be brushing the DESG's limits anyway. I'd rather not have people writing one thing and meaning another in this regard either. It would only add to the sometimes shakiness of the licenses I see all the time. Not good. =< -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the interests of the mass of unskilled consumers? -- Steve Shorter
Attachment:
pgpqpPlJHyVTd.pgp
Description: PGP signature