Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]
Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> If the project secretary decides
> that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
This is not correct.
The FSF, through RMS, has officially claimed that documentation does not need
the same freedoms as programs, and furthermore has stated that the GFDL is
not a free software license (they appear to be using "software" to mean
If Debian decides that the GFDL is not a "free software" license, then it is
*agreeing* with the FSF. On that one point.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
-- President Bush, referring to the US Constitution