MJ, Sanjoy, Francesco, IMHO a secondary section cannot be that easily by-passed, but indeed I'm not a lawyer. Also don't confuse preventing addition of 'global warming' statements in derivates versions and accepting such changes in a project manual. I think the maintainer of a project is constantly faced to situations where a person want him to switch licenses in order to accept his contributions, and the maintainer does not _have_ to accept such contribution, whatever license / invariant section is involved (for example rejecting MPL-only code in the Mozilla project).
Similarly we would like Texinfo documents at Savannah to be compatible with the GNU manuals. This is something we can't achieve if we accept GNU GPL manuals. We do not impose a particular license, just compatibility, and we'd rather have people release such manuals under _at least_ the GFDL rather than not being able to reuse them at all. We also require the GFDL'd documents to be version 1.2 or any later version so that any issue that can be found in the current version of this license will be fixed with the next one. In this regard, I asked what is the preferred way to send concerns about the GFDL in general. [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be glad to receive comments and use them for work on GFDL revision 3. DRM criticism about the GNU GPLv3 draft would probably also be useful in this aim. This is not about accepting a non-free license (the GFDL is a free documentation license), and this is not about rejecting free software at Savannah (we already do so by rejecting ASL'd software - until GNU GPLv3 is out, that is :)). Incidentally a dozen of existing Savannah projects Texinfo manuals are under the GNU GPL and hence affected by this. -- Sylvain
