On Mar 13, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > 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. I am not arguing that it changes the DFSG, but that it clarifies its meaning. And no, this still does not make it an "exception" (which would be a DFSG change too, and so it would require 3:2). -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature