2008/11/3 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/11/3 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.
--
geni