On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote: >> Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the >> following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of >> opinion which stands on it's own rather than rebutting someone else's >> statement. > > You are completely missing the camp that says that documentation is > software: > > Documents under the GFDL are software and hence must be judged by the > standard set by the DFSG.
This is a camp which includes me. I had hoped these folks would feel included in: >> c) The GFDL would not be free if applied to software, and is not free >> when applied to documents. There may or may not be a distinction >> between the two, but it is unreasonable to have different standards of >> freedom or different standards of whether Debian should distribute >> them. I can split this into two if desired, to cover those who believe there is no useful distinction and those who believe there is a distinction but Debian should hold all things to the same standards of freedom. > (There are similar variants here as in what you discussed.) There are likely variants of all of the points of view. I hope to keep the number of basic positions small, so the major topics can be discussed before (or concurrent to but seperately) the variations. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
