Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not > comfortable with it.
"Debian in general does not consider material under the GFDL with any significant clauses "activated" to be free." "Almost no one would seriously contend that the GFDL is a good license for digital materials." I think it's still too harsh. A few active posters on debian-legal are not "Debian in general". (IMHO, the GFDL is a very interesting starting point, and will almost certainly evolve to something genuinely useful. The problems that are considered fundamental by the fundamentalists are actually pretty minor, the question of invariant sections aside.)
