* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So that leads us right back to my point of trying to figure out what the > Project is telling us about interpreting licenses and the DFSG.
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to
actually do that, this GR didn't, just added an explicit exception. If
people want to say that the 'types of clauses as those found in the GFDL
are ok' then that would require some analysis like what you're doing.
Let's try to avoid having that happen, or at least wait to cross that
bridge till we get to it.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
