Re: GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license
"it's okay"? The point is that it always did pass; that this was
always understood; that the DFSG never meant "every single bit" but
always acknowledged that restriction of the modification of certain
things was not important.
Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote "it's okay". I'm even more
absent-minded today than I usually am.
Err.. I meant (skip if you're not up for "and the she said and then he
Of course it's always been implied, between the lines, that the DFSG
doesn't mean "every single bit".
As far as I know, even though this discussion may have been going on for
longer than I've been on the list, it started with some fonts and
xfig-examples and Branden said "Debian can only distribute free
software, as in DFSG-free" and then someone said "what, everything has
to pass through the DFSG, even licenses" and then someone said "no, of
course not, that would be absurd" and then someone said "of course it
would be absurd, but where does it say exactly what goes and what
doesn't" and we were very confused but now everything's going to be all
right, or so we think.
You should talk this out with Branden, I have a hunch (just vibes, not
based on anything) that there's some misunderstandings still, but I hope
I'm wrong and it's just me that's confused.
Anyway, there's not much I can do now, since things are either A)
totally okay, in which case I should stay the hell away, or B) totally
confused and there's some Important Decisions to make and I may as well