Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: >> > But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free >> > licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the >> > LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case >> > of Stallman's essays. >> If you think so, we're going to have a hard time dealing with this >> then. > > Why do you think that? It affects a reasonable number of texts, and will
I was extrapolating the "GFDL is not DFSG-compliant" discussion. > take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult. How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly? Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses files for quite a while now. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
