If this makes the GFDL non-DFSG-compatible, then no license that
requires
that license text, attribution or copyright notices be invariant is
DFSG-compliant: which is just about every one of them - even the MIT or
BSD
license requires that. This is taking the definition to the point of
absurdity.
One of the issues is, very roughly:
Should the DFSG be amended so that it can't be misinterpreted in the
above way? The world is, after all, absurd.
During my short time on the debian-legal mailing list I've managed to
put my foot in my mouth several times, and I'm grateful for what little
patience Branden and RMS still has for me. Please, don't be scared by
Brandens harsh reply. I invite you to read the archives, though. That
might be a good idea.
Sunna (and I'm very sorry if this message isn't in a proper plain text
format, I haven't had access to a real computer, and this one may screw
things up. I'm working on the issue, I promise.)
