[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: GFDL
From: |
MJ Ray |
Subject: |
Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: GFDL |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:41:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Heirloom mailx 12.2 01/07/07 |
Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> wrote:
> Works licensed under GFDL with Invariant Sections are also free works,
> provided that these sections meet the criteria as defined in the
> license. The fact that Debian had a GR that states otherwise is
> irrelevant -- their decision applies only to their distribution.
But what is a "free work"? Not even RMS disputed that GFDL with
Invariant Sections are not free software, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
- he doesn't think the question matters.
Maybe when FSF publish their Free Works Definition to go alongside the
Free Software Definition, and how to tell the difference between
Software and Works, I will understand their reasoning.
Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
- [gNewSense-users] GFDL, Tryggvi Björgvinsson, 2007/09/01
- Re: [gNewSense-users] GFDL, MJ Ray, 2007/09/02
- Re: [gNewSense-users] GFDL, Matthew Flaschen, 2007/09/03
- Re: [gNewSense-users] GFDL, MJ Ray, 2007/09/03
- [gNewSense-users] Re: GFDL, Yavor Doganov, 2007/09/04