On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:33:38PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > >In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: [...] > >] rejecting software > >] licenses that we consider free > This doesn't seem to get substantiated in that discussion. Out of > interest, do we know which ones they are? I only know of some where > debian-legal has no consensus.
The Affero General Public License, perhaps; I think we came to the consensus that 2(d) didn't meet the DFSG. http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
