On Mar 13, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > >I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL > > >w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the > > >GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to > > >actually do that, this GR didn't, just added an explicit exception. If > > If it wanted to added an exception it would have done so. > > This GR just established the correct interpretation of the DFSG for this > > license. > Err, so you agree with me? How is it not an exception when it's just > for this license? No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so) but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about this. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature