"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 22, "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian > >is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies > >with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software > >over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the > >GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important. That's > >what the survey's asking about. > I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that > documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to > figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.
Of course there is: there is source code licensed under the GFDL in several Debian packages. In order to not have to do surgery on the GNU Emacs and GCC packages, the GFDL will have to be found DFSG-free anyway. -Brian
