On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:25:37AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style....
... > Since this has already been seconded as-is here, I thought it best to > comment here instead of making random unauthorised edits to a wiki. On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:28:16AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Perhaps retitle it to > Why the current version of the GNU Free Documentation License is > not suitable for Debian main "Why the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is not suitable for Debian main" is shorter; adding "This document refers to version 1.2 of the GFDL." or similar in the beginning could work too. > > The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in > > a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a copyleft > > license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not possible to > > include content from a documention directly into free software under > > Not sure here (not a native English speaker), but can you say "from a > documentation"? Shouldn't that be either "from documentation" or "from a > piece of documentation"? Or "from documentation" or "from a document", yeah. > > I've put the above draft on the wiki [3] so people can tweak it. > I don't think that's a good idea. There's a fairly strict procedure for > GR proposals, with amendments et al. You shouldn't try to work around > that. The wiki doesn't work around it -- all GR stuff has to go via -vote or it's irrelevant for procedural purposes; it just means other people can put their changes in directly and the software'll generate pretty colourised diffs automatically. I presume more substantive changes (and hence new seconds) will be needed anyway, fwiw. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
