On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 11:56 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > If you are not lawyerly, is there one on savannah-hackers? > Many GNU manuals have misapplied FDL so far, including things > such as designating the licence as an invariant section (thereby > disabling the upgrade clause) or designating technical sections > as invariant (GDB).
Please report specific usage bugs to the maintainers of those programs. The GDB documentation's current notice says: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being ``Free Software'' and ``Free Software Needs Free Documentation'', with the Front-Cover Texts being ``A GNU Manual,'' and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. Neither of these are technical. > > Also don't confuse preventing addition of 'global > > warming' statements in derivates versions and accepting such changes > > in a project manual. > > I'm not aware that any of us are doing that. It is little comfort > that we are not forced to accept lies into our source if someone > makes a heavily-enhanced version of our work expressing views > that odious, or worse (National Front?). We cannot compete > with that version on the same terms unless we repeat their lies. I'm not going to get into a long discussion about the merits of Invariant Sections here. But I will note that so far, I know of no cases where anyone has contributed something useful along with a pernitious invariant section. > > 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. > > Most of these comments have been made for over 5 years now! > I have been told that there is a new draft of the FDL ready > for publication. Please publish it, so we can comment topically. We're not prepared to release a new draft of the FDL in the middle of the GPLv3 process. There are a few reasons for this: 1. We have limited staff resources. 2. Some text from the GPL may be carried over into the FDL. > > DRM criticism about > > the GNU GPLv3 draft would probably also be useful in this aim. > > The GPLv3 process is rather closed and difficult to access, > so I cannot comment at present. I am discussing this with its > webmasters, but I am frustrated that you direct me to a process > that I cannot access myself. Anyone who can send an email can comment.
