Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]: > > > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about > > > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not > > > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is > > > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which > > > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit > > > > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom > > equally to GFDL. > > Name one. > (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you > cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
The old LPPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
