Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
- To: Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
- Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
- From: Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:56:44 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20020204115644.B14665@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
- In-reply-to: <20020131143912.D824029839@mixing.qc.dfo.ca>; from GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca on Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:39:12AM -0500
- References: <20020129081503.B5496@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <87vgdld2mh.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20020129084949.A5924@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <87n0yxd1t6.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20020129091534.A6060@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <20020129143907.1DE4229856@mixing.qc.dfo.ca> <20020131114210.A25617@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <20020131143912.D824029839@mixing.qc.dfo.ca>
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:39:12AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The show stopper is
>
> - commercial products that include this document are themselves
> compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
>
> for DSFG #9 (License Must Not Contaminate Other Software).
Yes, that is my opinion too.
A proper DFDG would be nicer though, but i have not the time to go into this
right now ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: