On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >"DFSG-free Debian bits" > > Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly > clumsy phrase. By "DFSG-free" there, I meant "free of DFSG" not the > other, more common sense "free according to DFSG". Please edit my > original post accordingly to say things about "Debian bits ignoring > DFSG" or similar. It's not GNU FDL'd. ;-)
The following is not a rhetorical question: Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well? (Considering the differences between software and documentation I pointed out in a previous post) I would have no qualms about "Debian Free Guidelines" or even a DFSG that was not tied to a source code view of the world (and spelled out that it was not just for software). -- John
