aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: > Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license > that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG.
True, that is what he said, so I guess my comment was off-point. Of course, everyone agrees that we should adhere to the spirit of the DFSG -- the people who consider the GFDL non-free are perhaps the most ardent advocates of this. We tend to believe that for a license to be Free, it must not impose any restrictions, intentional or unintentional, which are contrary to the spirit of the DFSG. Simply claiming that something adheres to the spirit of the DFSG doesn't make it true. I believe that my description of the arguments of the people who want to ignore the problems with the text of the GFDL remains accurate: they want to look at the spirit of the license rather the actual text. It's a tenable position, though I don't agree with it. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]