Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >"DFSG-free Debian bits"
> Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
> clumsy phrase. By "DFSG-free" there, I meant "free of DFSG" not the
> other, more common sense "free according to DFSG". Please edit my
> original post accordingly to say things about "Debian bits ignoring
> DFSG" or similar. It's not GNU FDL'd. ;-)
The following is not a rhetorical question:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well?
(Considering the differences between software and documentation I pointed
out in a previous post) I would have no qualms about "Debian Free
Guidelines" or even a DFSG that was not tied to a source code view of the
world (and spelled out that it was not just for software).