On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:38PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...]
> >] rejecting software
> >] licenses that we consider free
> This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of
> interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of some where
> debian-legal has no consensus.
The Affero General Public License, perhaps; I think we came to the
consensus that 2(d) didn't meet the DFSG.
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature