Giovanni Mascellani
2018-04-16 08:50:04 UTC
Hello,
this question might be trivial, but I just realized that the GPL license
is itself licensed under a license that technically does not appear to
ever been discussed?
Note that I do not want to challenge the GPL or its usage in Debian. It
is only that I just realized that at this point we are contradicting
ourselves (because we distribute copies of the GPL in main, and actually
in an essential package).
What do people think about this issue?
Thanks and all the best, Giovanni.
this question might be trivial, but I just realized that the GPL license
is itself licensed under a license that technically does not appear to
$ head -n 6 /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
"Changing is not allowed" is in conflict with DFSG #3. Has this thingGNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
ever been discussed?
Note that I do not want to challenge the GPL or its usage in Debian. It
is only that I just realized that at this point we are contradicting
ourselves (because we distribute copies of the GPL in main, and actually
in an essential package).
What do people think about this issue?
Thanks and all the best, Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani <***@gmail.com>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Giovanni Mascellani <***@gmail.com>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles