Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
>>>>> "Glenn" == Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Glenn> On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman
>> How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a
>> requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation?
>> We consider both of those free.
Glenn> Requiring that a piece of text be included on a cover is
Glenn> far more onerous than requiring a statement in the
This applies equally well to advertizing clauses. Requiring me to
mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse
than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the
advertizing clause free.
I think we need to distinguish somewhat between what is a bad idea and
what is non-free.
I can see the argument for invariant sections; I can see the argument
for arbitrary cover texts. However we have a tradition of allowing
some very annoying texts about attribution to be included in
documentation and advertizing material. Thus I believe that allowing
cover texts that are short credits is acceptable.
One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to
be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too
long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD
license provided I include the name or name of the organization. If
this ends up being your problem with attribution cover texts then I
have no objection.