Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >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. > Rock ON! > An explicit GPL-conversion clause, a la the LGPL, would make the GFDL > unambiguously DFSG-free, of course, and would have the benefits of > GPL-compatibility as well. :-) This might well satisfy the FSF's > interests with respect to print publishers, who will most likely prefer > the GFDL terms to the GPL terms.
One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon as it gets enough manpower. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
