GFDL (was: EU Copyright..)

[MJ Ray]

Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen at dekkers.cx> wrote:
> It's intented for documentation. That documentation can have a section
> about the philosophy related of the thing documented, e.g. the GNU
> manifesto could be included to say why a specific GNU program was
> created.

If so, that should be licensed on its own under a different licence.

> You fail to see that a program is somethings functional and
> documentation is not and you have to treat is like that.

Why do you think the meaning of freedom changes depending on the authored
work being described?  I don't think it should.

> Documentation can also be read on the moon using software which runs
> disconnected from earth's network. What's your point?

There is no reason to change our beliefs if it is more difficult to obtain
the original in some cases than in others.

> But you say that the requirements to put the right things on the cover
> are bad, don't you?

I did not say that.  Do you say that you want to decide whether the author's
name appears on the cover?

> It the a free *documentation*, not a *free* software license. You are
> naming things which are in the definition of free software.

Why are they not valid for free software documentation?

> Debian doesn't classify the license as a non-free documentation license,
> all documentation licensed under the FDL are in main and there are no
> plans to move it to non-free. There is no reason the FSFE should ask GNU
> to reconsider.

Debian only calls it free if none of the restrictive sections are used. 
That is my understanding, at least, eg from Branden Robinson's message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00522.html

Feel free to point out any flaws in my logic.  I'm sure you will.  The
belief that the type of authored work is irrelevant is not one.