Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
The choice of whether to include a work is based on whether its license
is free. The definition of "free" is based, ultimately, on whether it
benefits free software or not. You're trying to bypass the process that
determines that, by handwaving wildly and saying "but anyway, who cares,
it would benefit free software to make an exception for this thing and
that thing". Sorry, but you're just not presenting any arguments that
I think are worth spending further time debating. If anyone else thinks
this has substance worth discussion, they're free to jump in, of course.
I completely disagree with your definition of free. Moreover I have
never seen such a definition (not in the FSF, nor in the open source
movement, nor even in the DFSG or the Debian license tests). A license
is free if you can practically use your freedom, not if it is ideal. You
completely mistake the fact of promoting a license and accepting one.
Finally I do not claim that we must make exceptions, I claim we must
interpret free less strictly than Debian legal (much on the same way as
the open source movement and the FSF): it is astonishing that licenses
that "does not follow the DFSG" does follow the law of the open source
movement which are exactly the same ones!
It's unfortunate that you place so little value on free documentation,
but that's your choice. I hope the free software community at large
ultimately disagrees with you.
I place value on free documentation but not on your definition of
"free". GFDL can be modified, with the inconvenience of being obliged to
include invariant section (which are non-technical).
Finally, both the FSF and the much bigger open source movement agree
with me (more modestly, I should say that I agree with them), not with
you. With these absurdly strict policies, Debian eventually does not
agree with itself: it's own logos cannot be modified! which show that
these policies were not what Debian want at its creation.