Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the endorsements separately from the rest of the document? i.e. the core content could be under the DFCL (unambiguously free & GPL compatible) while endorsements, odes to pets, etc. would be under a separate license of the original author's choosing.
The only other thing I can think of is some sort of "author severability" clause (kind of like the use of "Alan Smithee" by film directors): a provision that states any modification to sections A, B, or C of the text requires the removal of the original author's name from the text and/or a clear statement that the text is a modified version of the author's work. IMHO that wouldn't run afoul of the DFSG, as it is similar in spirit to DFSG clause 4. (Admittedly, some people dislike the "patch files" section of Clause 4, but this wouldn't be a patch files situation - it's analogous to the rename or re-version portion.) That way if someone edits the GNU Manifesto to add "RMS likes goats" halfway through, RMS can say "you can't call that the GNU manifesto any more, even though I do, in fact, like goats, and while you're at it take my damn name off!" (*). Don't mind me, I'm not really awake :-) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
