Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2. > I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from: > > [...] Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as > > the publisher of these copies. > > :::: Bad: is anonymous publication disallowed? I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible, but we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty. > [...] > > If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no=20 > > material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some=20 > > or all of these sections as invariant. > > :::: Kills copyleft: anyone can add "Invariant Sections" to a GFDLed > work No, it's still copyleft, because it's still distributable under the same licence. However, it can go non-free, because FDL is not necessarily free. Indeed, the copyleft means that the Invariant Section propaganda is always present. It's a copyleft, just not a sort that helps free software. [...] > I see that section 6a. (EXCERPTS) below seems to address the reference > card issue: unfortunately special-casing short excerpts (with a > hard-coded upper limit in length) is not the appropriate strategy to > cure the problem, IMO [...] I agree. 6a is simple sniping at an obvious example which illustrates several of FDL's worst bugs. FSF should realise that they need to fix the sickness, not merely eliminate the worst symptoms. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
