On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: > >> I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which > >> is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. > > The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is > > that I didn't have to pay to download it from <http://www.gnu.org/>.
> You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is > acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems > clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable, > I guess. Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? It isn't the *software* that costs you money, it's only the pickle relish that's attached to it by the license that has this non-free property. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpd19rvpxvCo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
