Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free. On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:
* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts. And they can't be added, so it doesn't break copyleft. * "Transparent" and "Opaque" definitions look OK this time. * The anti-DRM clause looks like it's still problematic. It appears to prohibit parallel distribution, because it applies to *any copies*. It should be written to apply to *any recipient*, not any copy. This is the prime point which should be fixed. * The requirement to include the license in the work, rather than making it accompany the work, is made much less obnoxious by the "excerpt" clause. * The mandatory "History" section is irritating, but much like a Changelog, so probably DFSG-free. * Acknowledgements and Dedications could be non-free requirements if they were abused, but I'm not sure. I think the requirements are free in this draft, because - only applies to actual acknowledgements and dedications - only applies when the acknowledged/dedicated work is still present - may make modifications which preserve the "substance and tone" In conclusion, on a first glance, I think the only clause I really want to get changed is the anti-DRM clause. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
