Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ]
* Branden Robinson
> 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.
--
Tore Anderson
Reply to: