Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Which leads us to a dilemma: the longer the GFDL remain > unchallenged, the more entrenched it gets. There is also evidence > that people are using invariant sections in a manner not envisaged by > the authors of the GFDL: Ralf Hildebrandt's postfix page used to > have this license statement: ` > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms > of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version > published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being > THE WHOLE DOCUMENT (each section is invariant). No Front- or Back-Cover Texts > are provided. ' > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think the conclusions drawn by the Debian community need to > be disseminated to the free software community, and the sooner the > better; I've been dissuaded from doing that by the dangling carrot of > the looming fix to the license. But, at some point, unless one can > bite into the carrot, it fails to be a motivator. You know, nothing is stopping package maintainers from talking to their upstreams about the problem and helping them choose a license other then the GFDL for their documentation. I already have. I don't know if making slashdot again with a position paper is the most effective way to cut down on the number of GFDLed works. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature