Re: GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [Bruce Parens wrote:]
> > The GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license.
> Yes, but not everything licensed under it may be DFSG-free.
The answer is, that we may simply need to verify, for manuals marked
with the GFDL, whether they in fact abuse the GFDL. If they do so,
then they have an inconsistent license, and it's murky whether an
inconsistent license is a license to do *anything*.
I would have no problem with our final judgment being that when
something is marked with the GFDL, the maintainer (with the advice of
debian-legal, if desired) needs to make sure that the Invariant
sections really are the harmless sorts described by the GFDL.