On 8/23/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pure GFDL is useful only for the GNU manifesto nothing
else. For
anything else CC-BY-ND does the job better.
It's offtopic, but your message betrays a commons misunderstanding
about the invariant sections clause of the GFDL. The invariant
sections clause isn't at all as offensive as a -ND license. It only
allows the author of a document to attach a statement about his
relationship to the work ... it can't be used to limit the freedom
over the functional parts of the work beyond the inability to remove
or cahnge the invariant section itself. Think of it like a really
enhanced form of attribution.
Yes, it's silly and obnoxious which is why we don't accept GFDLed
content with invariant sections it so it's a non-issue for us...
The modified version of the GFDL we use is just about
acceptable for
books but is still pretty poor.
The proposed SFDL in the current FSF proposals eliminates invariant
sections for documents that don't already have them. Making the issue
even more dead.
If you see other ways to improve the FDL please comment more on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions (Yes, I'm aware that
you are one of the few people who already have.. the link is for
everyone else).
It's quite possible for the FDL to become the best fitting and best
written license for useful content such as educational videos, text
books, encyclopedia articles, etc.. but only if we provide a lot of
input and have a lot of discussion.