No subject

1. GFDL is viral (*-SA-* is as well)
2. GFDL is large and clunky
3. GFDL is insufficiently flexible about the license inclusion on
electronically redistributed content, from a modern perspective
4. GFDL is structurally a poor match for oft-changed content (primary
authors, change logs/edit histories, etc... i.e any Wiki content).
5. GFDL hasn't been translated.


I know quite a few people who care about the license being viral, who either
exclusively use CC-SA type licenses or GFDL.  I know others who would be
perfectly happy if that went away leaving us with more of a CC-BY type
license.  I personally am comfortable without viral, but I agree that
imposing that on people who implicitly or explicitly bought in with that
assumption as part of their internal prioritization of why to use / like
GFDL is likely unfair and controversial and drama-inducing.


I don't know of anyone to date who's objected to structural improvements
along the lines of fixing 2-5, or making those aspects more like CC-BY-SA
licenses.

If you object to fixes to 2-5 then please explain your concerns in enough
detail that they can be carried to the update discussions which are going
on.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com