Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of
> invariant-less GFDL licensed works?
Well, for my part, I agree with the main GR proposed by Anthony, which
explains satisfactorily to me why even the invariant-less GFDL works
run afoul of the GFDL.
However, we also have heard that the FSF is going to have a new GFDL,
or some other licensing regime. Dammitall, they won't actually *say*,
so we can't tell. Despite lots of complaints about parts of the GFDL
which have nothing to do with invariance, and RMS's acknowledgement
that the GFDL is essentially broken in these regards and needs to be
fixed, nothing has happened.
I might be willing to compromise those points, but not if it causes
RMS to decide that, well, gee, it doesn't really matter.
Once more, I find that about this question, we are in a bind, because
of the "delay, delay, delay, we're talking to RMS..." that has been
going on for years. So, once more, I would like it if those who might
know more (you know who you are) could say something about what their
conversations have led to, and whether they think it is at all likely
that a fixed GFDL will emerge.