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

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Mar 13, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

> > >I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
> > >w/o invariant sections are free.  Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
> > >GR) rules apply.  If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to
> > >actually do that, this GR didn't, just added an explicit exception.  If
> > If it wanted to added an exception it would have done so.
> > This GR just established the correct interpretation of the DFSG for this
> > license.
> Err, so you agree with me?  How is it not an exception when it's just
> for this license?
No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so)
but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this
license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: