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

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

From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Oops.  How the hell did I pull that off?

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:15:09PM -0400, debian-legal@lists.debian.org wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 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.
> In any event, I believe the recent GR clearly states that, for the
> purposes of the Social Contract, documentation is software.  (Otherwise,
> the DFSG would simultaneously have been renamed to the "Debian Free Stuff
> Guidelines".)
> That's just my interpretation of the GR.  It doesn't seem controversial to
> me, since I don't believe that any interesting or convincing arguments
> have been made that documentation is not software.  I suspect we'll disagree
> on this, of course.  :)
> -- 
> Glenn Maynard
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: