[19:36] <JordiGH> Is there any official position regarding the GFDL?
[19:55] <Flannel> It's a nice acronym, sort of round in some parts, and square in others.  It's almost sort of symmetrical, if you squint a little.
[20:04] <JordiGH> I guess that means, "we don't give a damn"?
[20:09] <Flannel> JordiGH: I have no idea, I'm certainly not the one to ask.  Burgundavia might be.
[20:09] <Burgundavia> Flannel: what?
[20:09] <JordiGH> Kay.
[20:09] <Flannel> Burgundavia: 11:36 < JordiGH> Is there any official position regarding the GFDL?
[20:10] <Burgundavia> all ubuntu doc stuff is still dual licensed, afaik
[20:10] <Burgundavia> cc bysa and gfdl
[23:21] <mdke> JordiGH: no, we relicensed our documentation to cc-by-sa like over a year ago
[23:21] <mdke> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/License
[23:22]  * mdke smacks Burgundavia
[23:24] <JordiGH> mdke: Hm, I think I'm asking in the wrong place. I was wondering if overall Ubuntu had any issues with GFDLed docs.
[23:24] <mdke> JordiGH: no, not as far as I know. There are lots of them in the main Ubuntu repository
[23:25] <mdke> which is the repository used for supported software which fits all of our requirements for free software
[23:25] <JordiGH> So Ubuntu ignores the main/contrib/non-free separations that Debian makes, takes everything, and redistributes everything in their own way.
[23:26] <mdke> JordiGH: well, I don't know exactly what relationship there is between the Ubuntu and Debian components, but they are certainly at least partly independent
[23:27] <mdke> most Gnome documentation is licensed under GDFL, and that's in Ubuntu's main repository
[23:28] <JordiGH> Yeah, I see.