Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
- From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:30:55 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030501163055.GC725@epsilon.donarmstrong.com>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <yahy91yqasr.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk>
- References: <20030419132938.GA13484@azure.humbug.org.au> <20030420023514.GA2899@cs140102.pp.htv.fi> <20030424074735.GA1301@azure.humbug.org.au> <yahu1cndfcv.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk> <20030424170905.GB9943@azure.humbug.org.au> <yahbryueqa1.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk> <11450.146.122.45.164.1051299144.squirrel@www.iegrec.org> <yahy91yqasr.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk>
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually
> invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content...
I've seen this meme popping up in a couple of places.
Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this
statement?
Don Armstrong
--
DIE!
-- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpaOTDWzj8Bz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: