"Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You should spell these licenses out in full, such as "the GNU General > Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation". You > should include the "as published by" clause so that nobody unscrupulous > decides to publish a GPL that is really a proprietary license.
Actually we changed the wording a bit so that any copyleft license is acceptable; the GPL is now just an example. Thus, even if a new GPL appeared not published by the FSF, I would not mind as long as it is a copyleft license. More about this in a reply to another post, however. The new wording: 6. You may change the license to any other copyleft license such as the GPL, GFDL, CC SA, or the XEmacs manual license. > There are some rather serious problems with the GFDL that Debian is > trying to work out with the FSF. You can search the archives when they > come back online. I have read some of the threads and the summaries available on the web, thanks. Alex. -- .O. http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/ ..O Schroeder's first law: OOO The coffee at the office shall taste terrible.
