Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote:
> What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from:
> > [...] Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as
> > the publisher of these copies.
> :::: Bad: is anonymous publication disallowed?
I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible, but
we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
> > If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20
> > material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20
> > or all of these sections as invariant.
> :::: Kills copyleft: anyone can add "Invariant Sections" to a GFDLed
No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same
licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free.
Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always
present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software.
> I see that section 6a. (EXCERPTS) below seems to address the reference
> card issue: unfortunately special-casing short excerpts (with a
> hard-coded upper limit in length) is not the appropriate strategy to
> cure the problem, IMO [...]
I agree. 6a is simple sniping at an obvious example which illustrates
several of FDL's worst bugs. FSF should realise that they need to fix
the sickness, not merely eliminate the worst symptoms.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct