[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
> similar licences.
> Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not
> advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and refuted.  If
> we don't do this, someone, somewhere is going to make the jump, and proceed
> to pester the Project to death with questions about why we don't just modify
> "that pesky ol' DFSG" and solve the problem that way.

I think "Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?" in the proposed FAQ I just
posted in reply to Richard's message covers this. Could you have a look at it
to see if you agree?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpQoSUDfgjNY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: