On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > 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. For those following along at home, watch out for the clever use of the undefined term "free documentation license" here, which could mean anything at all. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature