Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

[Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>]

Sergey V. Spiridonov <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > That's mostly correct.  If only the GFDL did only that.  But it also
> > forces derived works to "include" the unvariant sections.  Also include
> 
> Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude
> invariant section. This would be a hole.

A hole in what?  In the fact that the GFDL allow invariant sections?
That's a circular argument.

Why is it important that a derived work maintain this secondary text?
Why are distributors given the right to add anything that anyone
downstream cannot remove?  What if you were not allowed to modify it,
but you were allowed to remove it?

And you clipped what I said about including the text of the license.
What is gained by that outside of the scope of dead-tree paper books?

Peter