For those interested in the status of the GNU Free Documentation License issue: Please read the interesting thread "The old DFSG-lemma again" on debian-legal from Nov. 2001. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html In the thread, Branden Robinson expressed concerns about ensuring DFSG-compliance of GFDLed documents. RMS cleared up several questions and argued convincingly (IMHO) that the GFDL is DFSG compliant. (Let the need formally to extend the Debian Free "Software" Guidelines to cover "Documenation" be duly noted.) Documents that aren't DFSG compliant are also not correctly licensed according to the terms of the GFDL. Nevertheless, it may remain appropriate to write up some instructions for making sure that the GFDL is correctly used; and the GFDL might perhaps be clarified a bit too. Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should be read? -- Thomas Hood
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part