Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 11:20]:
> > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about
> > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not
> > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is
> > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which
> > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit
>
> Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> equally to GFDL.
Name one.
(Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
>. Should we consider to put this code also in main?
>I say "no" to this. If something is not DFSG-free thant it can not be
>put into main.
Did I, in my previous mail, proposed that?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: