On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:32:05AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> writes: > > > There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders > > every document non-free or only those that include invariant > > sections. > > 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). I assume you're referring to this[1]. The poll was worded carefully, yes, but anyone who thought I was cleverly manipulating them could have simply marked the option: None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Only 2 out of 63 respondents selected that option. Your accusation of manipulation suggests to me that your message is far from objective. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to branden@debian.org | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature