Hopefully Mr. Carlson will jump in here if I've completely failed to
understand the issue.
If the documentation could be relicensed under the GPL, or dual-licensed
under the GPL and FDL, I think everyone might be satisfied. I could be
mistaken about this as well.
Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:43:30 -0500
From: Clint Adams <email address hidden>
To: Paolo Bonzini <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>,
"Brian M. Carlson" <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#281639: sed: documentation is non-free
> The manual is free as long as there are no invariant sections, isn't it?
I think there was a consensus previously that the GNU FDL was free as
long as there were no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
I think the current consensus may be as is described at people. debian. org/~srivasta/ Position_ Statement. xhtml .
http://
This issue gets an exemption for the sarge release policy, release. debian. org/sarge_ rc_policy. txt .
http://
Hopefully Mr. Carlson will jump in here if I've completely failed to
understand the issue.
If the documentation could be relicensed under the GPL, or dual-licensed
under the GPL and FDL, I think everyone might be satisfied. I could be
mistaken about this as well.