Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of > invariant-less GFDL licensed works?
Well, for my part, I agree with the main GR proposed by Anthony, which explains satisfactorily to me why even the invariant-less GFDL works run afoul of the GFDL. However, we also have heard that the FSF is going to have a new GFDL, or some other licensing regime. Dammitall, they won't actually *say*, so we can't tell. Despite lots of complaints about parts of the GFDL which have nothing to do with invariance, and RMS's acknowledgement that the GFDL is essentially broken in these regards and needs to be fixed, nothing has happened. I might be willing to compromise those points, but not if it causes RMS to decide that, well, gee, it doesn't really matter. Once more, I find that about this question, we are in a bind, because of the "delay, delay, delay, we're talking to RMS..." that has been going on for years. So, once more, I would like it if those who might know more (you know who you are) could say something about what their conversations have led to, and whether they think it is at all likely that a fixed GFDL will emerge. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]