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

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

>> 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.

You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free
documentation license.  I still believe that the survey was very
suggestive.  It wasn't your intention, but simply the result of your
belief that documentation is software, too.

> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html

Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.

Reply to: