On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
No it's more so. It is hard under the CC-BY-ND license to tie free
text to non free. The closest you can get would be a collection of
CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND and you could separate the non free text from
the free.
It only
allows the author of a document to attach a statement about his
relationship to the work
That would be covered by the endorsements clause.
... 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.
And if the invariant section happens to be a nazi rant you've
successfully created a -Nde and Nfr license
Think of it like a really
enhanced form of attribution.
Not even close. The attribution clause is largely meaningless outside
of the US since the law would require you to credit the author in any
case. Attribution isn't generally used as a means for pushing ideology
(Mr [[John Portsmouth Football Club Westwood]] excluded).
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...
I would argue that it suggests that the FSF on a certain level really
doesn't get it.
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.
Nope just the obvious ones. Completely misses the invariant sections
known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
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.
Discussion would require the FSF to get involved.
--
geni