Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andreas Barth <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > * Mathieu Roy (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030909 11:20]:
> > > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about
> > > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not
> > > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is
> > > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which
> > > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit
> > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> > equally to GFDL.
> Name one.
> (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
> cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
The old LPPL.