Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy
Bob Hilliard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> > Sections or Cover Texts.
> A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why not to use the GNU FDL:
> > > http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
> > Wow. Most Apropos Sig Ever. :)
> > I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
> > read it.
> The referenced above, says, in part,
> | If you use the GFDL but don't use Invariant Sections or Cover Texts,
> | and don't include an "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" section, this
> | is free. But a later person, modifying your work, can still add
> | them. Accordingly, the GFDL fails to be a "copyleft": later authors
> | can convert your free manual into a manual encumbered with Invariant
> | Sections.
> Will the real Branden please stand up?
There are also problems with the definition of Opaque and Transparent
Forms which, IMHO, render it non-free no matter what you put in it.
So I would disagree with the referenced link in that respect.