Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman <email@example.com> writes:
> We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
> We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
> because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
> package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go
> through to do create the binary package.
> That is a very clear place to draw the line, but I think it rejects a
> range of licenses, for software programs as well as for documentation,
> that we could accept.
Which licenses (for programs)?