On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes and no. Depends how you define sort and when it first appeared.
The NC open content license predates it and the Design Science License
appears around the same time
The invariant sections clause was important to some of
the
initial users of the license.
I don't dispute this.
Times have changed, understandings have improved, and
the problem is
already fixed in the draft v2 licenses. Get over it.
Last I saw pure GFDL was hanging onto invariant sections although that
could be because there is no way to remove them I don't know.
Nope just the
obvious ones. Completely misses the invariant sections
known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
It's a draft for a reason.
We shall see
Discussion
would require the FSF to get involved.
Jesus, Geni. They *are* involved. You've been told this. They want our
input.
11 months ago (minus about 3 days ok). Any statements since then?
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.
Eh there are worse fates.
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. :)
Don't want them to edit that page. I want to see a statement from the
FSF on the comments they have received so far from everyone wikimedia
or otherwise showing that they are thinking about them.
Something along the lines of "XYZ" under consideration, "123" need
more commentary, "ABC" probably not at this time.
--
geni