Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
> every document non-free or only those that include invariant
Personally, I think the GNU FDL is acceptable as a free documentation
license, as long as the invariant sections are not overly long and do
not contain essential material.
However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is
non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as
a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully,
after the "software is documentation" dogma).
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, netscape.net,
postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.