Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
Well, that's news! Given this I won't bother replying to Adam's questions. > Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to documentation > than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it seemed most > sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's > the policy. Moot point if they come up with a GFDL that is DFSG-compliant. Peter
