On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:05AM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > fsf-free > > > > Should this rather be GFDL-free ?? > > I read it more like 'Give me what the FSF thinks is Free'. Free what? The FSF openly admits that the GFDL is not a free software license, and they aren't just playing stupid games about the definition of 'software'. They have a definition of what constitutes a free software license, and the GFDL fails it because it's too restrictive. They have never suggested any other definition of 'Free' for other stuff, nor labelled the GFDL as 'Free' other than in its name. Attempts to extract information on this subject are met with dismissal. So goodness knows what it could mean. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature