Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-11, Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> a tapoté :
>> On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> >> Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
>> >> sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
>> > This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
>> The poll held recently made it very clear. Who has changed their
>> position since then?
> A poll gives an overview of the feelings of people participating to
> the poll. It does not at all prove that something is right or wrong.
> Right now I listed 3 problems:
> - invariant section ...
> - anti-DMCA clause...
> - transparent clause...
What's the status of other invariant or pseudo-invariant sections,
like History and Cover Text?
And Branden Robinson mentioned unease with the clauses on mass
copying. Have they been considered carefully yet?