On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:41:26 -0500 David Turner wrote: > > > In this regard, I asked what is the preferred way to send concerns > > > about the GFDL in general. [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be glad to > > > receive comments and use them for work on GFDL revision 3. > > > > Most of these comments have been made for over 5 years now! > > I have been told that there is a new draft of the FDL ready > > for publication. Please publish it, so we can comment topically. > > We're not prepared to release a new draft of the FDL in the middle of > the GPLv3 process. There are a few reasons for this: > > 1. We have limited staff resources. > > 2. Some text from the GPL may be carried over into the FDL.
So, let me understand:
* you admit that a new GFDL version is necessary to address its issues
* there are not enough resources to start a public comment process
right now
* there are enough resources to push the adoption of a *bad* license
with known issues, before it gets fixed
This puzzles me.
Wouldn't it be wiser to fix the license *first* and only *then* ask for
compatibility?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpkcuukgcgig.pgp
Description: PGP signature
