On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:58:08 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My point, though, is that I believe that the differences between the >> restrictions in the OpenSSL license and the GFDL license are >> sufficient such that one cannot say that "If OpenSSL is allowed, the >> GFDL documentation should be allowed as well." > Straw man: "the GFDL documentation should be allowed as well" was not > the point of discussion. It rather was "GFDL documentation with the > minimum front and back cover texts prescribed by the current GNU > maintainer guidelines and no other explicitly invariant material > should be allowed as well". Fine: My point, though, is that I believe that the differences between the restrictions in the OpenSSL license and the GFDL license are sufficient such that one cannot say that "If OpenSSL is allowed, then GFDL documentation with the minimum front and back cover texts prescribed by the current GNU maintainer guidelines and no other explicitly invariant material documentation should be allowed as well." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
