Re: A possible GFDL compromise
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
- From: Sergey Spiridonov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:26:57 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20030825233236.471DA4408D@doctormoo>
- References: <20030825233236.471DA4408D@doctormoo>
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a very important point. I have stated before that I would not have
serious objections to the FSF issuing a small number of non-free manuals for
a good reason, as it has been doing for 15 years. (Nearly the entire GNU
Project website is 'verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article'
only, so there's further precedent for the GNU Project distributing non-free
What about DFSG FAQ draft? Do you think this can be applied to FDL
# Q: Does whether some software is free depend solely on its license?
A: Almost always, but there are rare exceptions. When necessary we take
other considerations into account. So two packages with the same license
could be judged differently based on extra-license comments the
copyright holder has made regarding intent or interpretation, or based
on how the contents of the package interact with license stipulations.
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov