Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: [...]
> That's mostly because -legal won't even say that the GPLv2 is DFSG-free,
> except in so far as it's explicitly listed as being DFSG-free.

Got a reference for that?

GPLv2 is a very frequently-suggested DFSG-free licences, has been the
subject of repeated analysis, http://lists.debian.org/search.html
is in the FAQ, http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq
the web page http://www.uk.debian.org/legal/licenses/
and probably other places.

I don't think it's particularly interesting that periodically posters pop
up on debian-legal thinking they've spotted a new flaw in GPLv2.  I expect
that licensing@fsf gets a number of those too - debian's difference is its
openness.  I think almost all of them end up agreeing once it's explained
clearly.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct