Perhaps instead of debating the freeness of the GFDL, which seems to be an emotionally charged issue, we could discuss its "inconveniences" without bringing in freeness per-se. If these inconveniences, or other practical issues, could be shown to the FSF's satisfaction to be too onerous or problematic, it is possible that the FSF would want to reconsider the GFDL for that reason alone.
I see a few practical problems with the GFDL: - incompatibility with the GPL - not a full copyleft (because people can add invariant sections thus distributing the document under terms more restrictive than those imposed on the materials they received) - lack of clarity (even debian-legal can't figure it all out; even the FSF makes mistakes in labeling invariant sections; even wikipedia used it incorrectly; even with lots of helpful explanations from RMS himself there is considerable lack of understanding on just what the GFDL actually requires) - possibility of obsolescence, via dated invariant sections - possibility of obsolescence, via changes in technologies (such as the disappearance of printed matter, or the particulars of file formats and access restrictions) - difficulty in modifying invariant sections of GFDLed documents not under unified central control (need permission from many contributors or their estates/agents, which becomes more difficult with time) - can be very difficult or impossible to repurpose chunks (eg copy regexp chapter) - does not "lead by example" (if all software used the GPL, all code would be freely available and sharable. if all documentation used the GFDL, differences in invariant sections and cover matter would impede sharing. perhaps licenses should lead by example to the world we all want: a world where sharing is always unimpeded) - is causing a lot of fighting and bad feeling between people who have the same goal and who should be cooperating and helping each other Some of these do not impact the FSF in its productions of manuals, due to the FSF's possession of copyright assignments, and its ability to "break the rules" as necessary. They would however affect more distributed groups attempting to communally maintain software that includes GFDL'ed documentation. They would even affect groups that want to exchange & share materials despite having highly divergent technical goals. As we all know, one of the FSF's central tennants is that everyone should have the right to modify and share. So it seems to me that these issues may concern the FSF even if they do not directly affect it.
