Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes: > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this > license would require significant additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works > under this license would require no additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain > restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the > copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under > this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case > basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered > Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. > > Part 2. Status of Respondent > > Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true. > > [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian > Constitution as of the date on this survey. I have answered under the assumption that the license is applied to software (and not documentation, which is the common case), since this seems to be what you have asked for.
Attachment:
pgpWxNpF0EnS_.pgp
Description: PGP signature