On 8/23/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would argue that it suggests that the FSF on a
certain level really
doesn't get it.
Come now. The GFDL is a fairly old license and the first license of
it's sort. The invariant sections clause was important to some of the
initial users of the license.
Times have changed, understandings have improved, and the problem is
already fixed in the draft v2 licenses. Get over it.
Nope just the obvious ones. Completely misses the
invariant sections
known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
It's a draft for a reason.
Discussion would require the FSF to get involved.
Jesus, Geni. They *are* involved. You've been told this. They want our
input. If you keep saying otherwise I will have to send ninjas to
flip out and kill you. Even though ninjas are totally sweet, I expect
that you would not enjoy being killed.
It is, however, the case that no from the FSF has edited the page. I
would not recommend they do so at this point, if for no other reason
that to avoid dealing with some of the more 'interesting' types of
argument we find in our community. ... um.. like the style of your
response here. :)