[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so) > but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this > license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about > this.
The position statement appears to state the conclusion without stating what the DFSG mean when applied to this licence. It says nothing about the anti-DRM or Transparent/Opaque problems directly. It just pulls a conclusion out of the project's backside without rationale. This leaves a huge gaping hole in the understanding of the FDL. Dumb. Most FDL'd works I care about include unmodifiable sections and this position statement is clear about them, at least. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
