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

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:29:16 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 267fc46c8dc592d330694a6e3d8bddde@bouncing.localnet>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87wu3zls7e.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>

On 2004-04-28 22:15:33 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free
documentation license.

That seems mostly irrelevant to whether it is a freesoftware/DFSG-free licence.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
  - From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Problematic Software Licenses
Next by Date: Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
Previous by thread: Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Next by thread: Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread