Re: A WDL.

[MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>]

Thoughts on WDL:

Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake?  There's probably 
some better name.  They also don't seem to meet FSF's requirements.  
The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, adding 
more unmodifiable parts to the document.

I still don't like the labelling requirements (cover texts) but that's 
just a dislike.  Embedding them in the unmodifiable licence notice 
feels sneaky.  Are they legal notice or really part of the work?

I don't understand "substance and tone" if it is modifiable.

Replacement "Opaque" definition also seems a bit wooly and arguable.

A few other errors a spellcheck should correct for you.

What copyright is the FDL under and is the WDL allowed to contain so 
much of it?

--
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/