Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying the DFSG to the GFDL, I would concur as listed below. On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this > license would require significant additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. If you hold this opinion, be aware that this would only work if that permission is not specific to Debian. > [X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain > restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the > copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under > this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case > basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered > Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. > > Part 2. Status of Respondent > > Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true. > > [X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian > Constitution as of the date on this survey.
