Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> However, debian-legal assumes that the GFDL with invariant sections is >> non-free, and there seems to be a majority for a general rejection as >> a free _software_ license (but the poll was worded quite carefully, >> after the "software is documentation" dogma). > > I assume you're referring to this[1]. > > The poll was worded carefully, yes, but anyone who thought I was > cleverly manipulating them could have simply marked the option: > > None of the above statements approximates my opinion. > > Only 2 out of 63 respondents selected that option.
You asked for DFSG compatibility, which doesn't tell us if it's a free documentation license. I still believe that the survey was very suggestive. It wasn't your intention, but simply the result of your belief that documentation is software, too. > [1] > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com, netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.
