Differences between revisions 9 and 11 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 9 as of 2007-08-07 14:31:29
Size: 2503
Editor: BenFinney
Comment: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Revision 11 as of 2007-08-08 01:08:11
Size: 3206
Editor: BenFinney
Comment: Succinct statements from RMS showing crucial differences of position
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 13: Line 13:
 * 2003
  * ["NathanaelNerode"] publishes a brief [http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL] article.
 * 2003-08-28
  * ["NathanaelNerode"] [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg01115.html proposes a change] to the Debian website, pointing to his brief [http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL] article.
Line 29: Line 29:
 * 2003-09-24
  * RMS makes explicit that [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01220.html he believes users deserve different freedoms depending on the interpretation of the bitstream].
    {{{I don't believe that political essays ought to be free in the same sense as documentation or [programs], for instance.}}}
  * RMS states that [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html he doesn't believe it matters whether the FDL is a free software license].
    {{{I am not sure if the GFDL is a free software license, but I don't think the question matters.}}}

This is a loose timeline of the history of the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) issue within Debian. It's meant to be a "one-stop shop" for people who want to know more.

The [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html official page for the FDL].

Mailing list discussion: