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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:

> On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 01:55 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I was too quick.  Combining the GFDL with any license
> > (whether free software or not) produces a work which, if software,
> > would not be accepted as free software at all.
> Please tell me if I'm missing something, but this sounds quite like
> begging the question. That is, of course it doesn't, because the GFDL
> is not a free software license.

It's not begging the question, because nobody claims the GFDL is a
free software license--not the FSF even.

The FSF claims that "free" means one thing when it applies to
software, and a different thing when it applies to documentation.  One
consequence of this is that the FSF now touts a "free documentation
license" which cannot be combined with *any* free software license.

Reply to: