"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message 20070527011846.204858e0.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:20070527011846.204858e0.frx@firenze.linux.it...
I'm not sure if I would charcterize my analysis as including major objections, but rather some concerns. I explicitly stated that I did n ot actually find DFSG problems, although two complicated portions were not analyized.Sam Hocevar <sam@zoy.org> wrote:1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from -legalI don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/euei2j$qqc$1@sea.gmane.org
So I would say I had concerns but not nessisrally objections.Nevertheless, I would also say that my post is hardly consensus. So while no major objections may have been raised on list, it is also true that there is no real consenus that the licence in its current draft from does meet the DFSG. Impling that it does to the FSF is not a great idea.
IANAL, IANADD