Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[olive <olive.lin@versateladsl.be>]

Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> [ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
> seconds on -vote, please. ]
>
> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
>
> --8<--
> The Debian Project asserts that
>
> Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
> published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in
> accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only
> if the work is licensed using the following options of the license:
>
>         no Invariant Sections,
>         no Front-Cover Texts, and
>         no Back-Cover Texts

I still don't understand how Debian can consider free the advertising 
clause of the original BSD license and not accept something very similar 
for the GFDL? This has in the past make the object of long flame but I 
never had any answer. So I ask again. If something has been already said 
about this specific question (why the difference between the original 
advertising close of the original BSD licence and the GFDL), please give 
  a reference

Olive