Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:

> The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
> s/sentence/chapter/g; s/system/manual/g;
> s/University of California/GNU Manifesto/g and similar:

I agree with your points, but for the sake of clarity it should be
noted that:

1) The FSF never argued that the advertising clause made something
   nonfree, nor have we.
2) The advertising clause does not consist of part of the content of
   the work itself.

> FDL seems like an attempt to sell adverts to attract legacy publishers.
> Has it worked?

Heh.  Of course not.