Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>The winners are:
>Option 2 "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free"
>
Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority;
chaos is preserved for another day.[0]
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for
> each problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does
> not make things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of
> the license, stop nit-picking so much."
Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does
this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the
GFDL itself? (If I was a DD I would vote for Option 2 myself, and I
think that it is acceptable to have a requirement that the license
itself be included and not mo
3 matches
Mail list logo
