On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500 Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > 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.
Attachment:
pgpC4DFZeuDom.pgp
Description: PGP signature