Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
> Anthony Towns wrote:

> > What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?

> >    Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
> >    works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
> >    copies of the GPL, eg, but do not give you permission to take the

> Apparently they do allow it, according to Brian T. Sniffen who points out
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> If the license portion of the GPL can indeed be reused and modified then it
> is a bad example to use here.

But the question itself is good, because many people do have the
impression that the "changing it is not allowed" language at the top
of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an
excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery.

And one notices that the original reasoning still applies to the
GPL's Preamble, which seems to be explicitly non-reuseable.

> > Beyond allowing invariant sections, why does the GNU FDL suck?

> A little peice of me wonders if "why does the GNU FDL suck" is politic
> even in a FAQ, but whatever.

I think this is covered by the Draft Status Warning at the beginning
of the FAQ. In the production version, let us chage it to "what else
is bad about the GNU FDL?".

-- 
Henning Makholm                               "... popping pussies into pies
                                                      Wouldn't do in my shop
                            just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
                           and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."