Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [Bruce Parens wrote:]
> > The GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license. > > Yes, but not everything licensed under it may be DFSG-free. The answer is, that we may simply need to verify, for manuals marked with the GFDL, whether they in fact abuse the GFDL. If they do so, then they have an inconsistent license, and it's murky whether an inconsistent license is a license to do *anything*. I would have no problem with our final judgment being that when something is marked with the GFDL, the maintainer (with the advice of debian-legal, if desired) needs to make sure that the Invariant sections really are the harmless sorts described by the GFDL. Thomas
