Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from:
> > [...] Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as
> > the publisher of these copies.
>
> :::: Bad: is anonymous publication disallowed?
I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible, but
we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
> [...]
> > If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20
> > material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20
> > or all of these sections as invariant.
>
> :::: Kills copyleft: anyone can add "Invariant Sections" to a GFDLed
> work
No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same
licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free.
Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always
present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software.
[...]
> I see that section 6a. (EXCERPTS) below seems to address the reference
> card issue: unfortunately special-casing short excerpts (with a
> hard-coded upper limit in length) is not the appropriate strategy to
> cure the problem, IMO [...]
I agree. 6a is simple sniping at an obvious example which illustrates
several of FDL's worst bugs. FSF should realise that they need to fix
the sickness, not merely eliminate the worst symptoms.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: