Mike Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To the extent that the FSF is willing and able to clarify > the point on documentation with the Debian leadership, [...]
That's nice to hear, but I think we got the point: FSF want to be able to include unmodifiable adverts in manuals. (I know the adverts are good things, but they are still unmodifiable things.) Until FSF take a less arbitrary view of freedom, there might not be common ground. > [...] I believe the FSF speaks authoritatively > on the meaning of the GPL, but I'll reiterate that the > Debian leadership took a different view of the combination > of docs under the CC A-SA and code under the GPL. If that > remains true today, you've got a problem lurking out there. Can someone give a reference for this claim about tbm's view? I doubt someone as experienced as him would have said anything contradicting FSF's view about aggregation. It depends what you mean by "combination" - I doubt FSF would claim you can paste CC A-SA material into a program and then release it under GPL.
