[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

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 material.)

What about DFSG FAQ draft? Do you think this can be applied to FDL documentation?

# 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

Reply to: