Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
[...] I think it's clear that a number of key functions are intended, though, and that the GFDL is the minimum required to meet them.=20
Do these "functions" include restricting the freedom to modify beyond what is absolutely required?
Which section are you referring to here? I have read the GFDL over twice now, and I can't even see the word 'advertisement', and neither can my find. Are you talking about the 'Endorsements' section?
No, I am speaking of invariant sections, which (because they may not be technical content) are pretty much advertisements under another name, as far as I can see.
The GFDL is aimed at reference and technical works, and there are well-established rules about authorship, citation, endorsement, etc. I think this is why it is more complex than the GPL in this regard.
Yes, that may be the problem. The GFDL is trying to play in the established book market, which tries to restrict the freedom of authors and readers. I think it hands too much power to publishers.
However, I don't buy that it's non-free - the technical information, the whole value of the document, is freely modifyable and distributable. That's all that matters to me, really, the rest is etiquette.
How can you say that it is "non-free"? Far too much of it may be unmodifiable and have to be passed on with every copy.
Leave the etiquette as etiquette instead of trying to encode it in a licence which makes the documentation unusable in certain situations that you didn't consider. The technical value can be made copyleft better under other licences instead of this one.