[Margarita Manterola] > What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal > won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all" > proposal won. So, why have yet another option? The point is to explain to the world what is wrong with the GFDL. If someone still wants to use it, on works which are not yet written, or whose license can still be changed (all the copyright holders are still around and can agree on this), Nathaniel's option gives clear steps for what they need to do. Someone who holds a copyright on GFDL-licensed material is much more likely to be willing to add Nathaniel's amendments to the terms than to be willing to consider a completely different license. Especially since we don't have any other "documentation licenses" to recommend at this time (although the next revision of the CC family of licenses will probably include one).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature