Anthony Towns wrote:
>In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
>more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
>gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
>Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
Rock ON!
...Of course, the FSF has had well over two years already, and should
not be given unlimited amounts of time. If the members who have asked
for more time are genuinely interested in the problem, and actually have
any influence over the FSF's policies, great! But I fear that RMS may
rule with an iron hand and be uninfluencible in this case. Although I
hope neither is true!
I believe the following are not negotiable:
1. "Invariant Sections" must be removable.
2. The "no obstruction by technical means" clause must apply only to
copies *distributed*, not to copies *used*.
An explicit GPL-conversion clause, a la the LGPL, would make the GFDL
unambiguously DFSG-free, of course, and would have the benefits of
GPL-compatibility as well. :-) This might well satisfy the FSF's
interests with respect to print publishers, who will most likely prefer
the GFDL terms to the GPL terms.
