Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
wrote:
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?
I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly
applicable to documentation in Debian in an obvious way. I would
support an explanation that made it clear the difference between
guidelines and examples, and a massively-hyperlinked version that
specified every word as far as we can. Some posters claimed to have
trouble with each of those.
(Considering the differences between software and documentation I
pointed
out in a previous post)
You seem to have generally declined to consider whether documentation
in Debian is a subset of software (that is to say: they are different,
but we can/should treat documentation in Debian as software) and only
restate that they are not identical (although I am not sure anyone
claims otherwise). I apologise if this is unfair and I just missed
your messages for some reason.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@jabber.at
Reply to: