On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:45:20PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Aurelien Jarno<[email protected]> wrote: > > The GFDL instead is not considered non-free, but the GFDL *with* > > invariant sections is considered non-free. > > Sorry, I don't follow, I assume you meant to write "free" somwhere > instead of "non-free?" >
GFDL *without* invariant sections -> free GFDL *with* invariant sections -> non-free Cheers, Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
