* Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) wrote: > 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. It's obviously an exception (or it would have said 'licenses like the GFDL'). It doesn't change the DFSG at all. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature