On 8/23/07, geni geniice@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. :)