If this makes the GFDL non-DFSG-compatible, then no license that requiresthat license text, attribution or copyright notices be invariant isDFSG-compliant: which is just about every one of them - even the MIT or BSD license requires that. This is taking the definition to the point of absurdity.
One of the issues is, very roughly:Should the DFSG be amended so that it can't be misinterpreted in the above way? The world is, after all, absurd.
During my short time on the debian-legal mailing list I've managed to put my foot in my mouth several times, and I'm grateful for what little patience Branden and RMS still has for me. Please, don't be scared by Brandens harsh reply. I invite you to read the archives, though. That might be a good idea.
Sunna (and I'm very sorry if this message isn't in a proper plain text format, I haven't had access to a real computer, and this one may screw things up. I'm working on the issue, I promise.)