Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joerg Wendland <email@example.com> writes:
> Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
>> Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
>> Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
>> Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
> I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is "free enough"
> for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules
> but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of
> GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve
> freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion
Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL
meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly,
you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the
DFSG and does so.
> ends here.
So it does. I greatly enjoy the freedom to derive a work from that
which you sent. Just think -- if you'd licenses your message under
the GFDL, not only would I have had to include a History section in
this reply, but it would have been illegal for you to read it, thanks
to the opportunistic encryption of SMTP/TLS!