Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said:> Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar. > It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act. For what it is worth, as a memeber of the silent lurkers, I agree with and would second your proposal.As one of the even more silent lurkers I'd like to add my voice to that too.Actually I'm *very* glad that so many folks on d-l are actively working on/thinking about this issue, as I see the FSF heading into a very unfortunate direction with this invariant section stuff.Cheers, Yven
On the page "http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html"; I found :"The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The "cover text" feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors are paid. To improve the appeal, I consulted specifically with staff of publishing companies, as well as lawyers, free documentation writers, and the community at large, in writing the GFDL."
Then, why don't have two license : the GFDL for commercial publishers; and a "community GFDL" (without the problems of the actual GFDL) for free documentation writers and non commercial publishers.
The writer, however, 'll be able to choose.