Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> > I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them
> > specifies a brief back cover text:
> > "This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at
> > http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk".
> > Is that a problem?
> It might become a problem if your site ever moves. I think this is
> what Walter meant with cover texts that are misleading.
Among other things.
> Fortunately, unlike with Invariant Sections, at least *you* have
> authority to change the cover text. That doesn't help if you
> can no longer be contacted, though. People do drop off the
> net sometimes :)
Or the author doesn't want to change it. One situation that I am all
too familiar with has a cover text with something like
Unfortunately, foo.com has long disappeared. Even so, the original
author refuses to take out that cover text.
> > Also, while I have your attention, I would also like to say that I would
> > welcome any translations of these articles to other languages. The Open
> > Source Development Lab has already translated the two kernel testing
> > articles to Japanese.
> In that case, if you do go with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2.
> Version 1.1 is problematic with translations.
I'm starting to think that both versions of the GFDL are problematic,
even without cover texts or invariant sections. They don't let me
take content and put it in an openoffice or lyx document. Everything
has to be modifiable with generic text editors (or paint or drawing
programs). Version 1.1 was even worse in this regard, explicitly
marking postscript as an opaque format.