2008/11/3 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Eric's attempt kinda gets around the problem (although I find this highly questionable) but only at the cost of trashing the spirit of the license.
Only in the sense that the "spirit" of the GFDL is "this pretends to be a free licence but we assure you, it's all but unusable in practice," which appears to be a feature to some people. (Which strikes me as severely out of step with the Wikimedia mission, but anyway.)
- d.
Not what I meant. In this case the spirt is to prevent GFDL manuals being relicensed. Eric's interpretation would allow for sites like scribd (which does have GFDL licensed manuals on it) to be considered MMCs.
Fortunately all the manuals I've found so far have had cover texts and/or invariant sections. I don't know if it applies to all of them however. If it does the FSF can safely clarify the situation. If it does not Eric's interpretation is potential problem.
Again there is also the issue of how much damage this would case. It would be significant yes but we have been pushing dual and CC licensing for years and I think we got a pretty good response rate on the no disclaimers relicensing thing. Not impossible that we could attempt that again.