Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain. > > I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one) > which addresses that issue.
By saying "everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders". But hey! We don't need a border at all here! We can ENTIRELY AVOID the problem. Why should we accept it then? > 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources, > > As I explained, this desire is usually impossible due to > incompatibility of licenses. To reject the GFDL on these grounds and > accept some other GPL-incompatible license is a double standard. We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of licenses. Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free software license I use. I will use any license. I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd manual into this new program. I am not going to incorporate any other previously written bits from any source. What license should I use for my program? This is not a case of incompatibility.