The conclusion became more interesting than the main reply, so I'll put that first...
So, to conclude this subthread, some writers here think that the FDL-1.3's general approval of CC-By-SA doesn't lend FSF endorsement to CC in general, and that the new FDL-1.3 "escape route" clause is no worry - but are they the mainstream, or just a vociferous minority?
I think there are two interesting cases arising from FDL-1.3:-
1. any operator could now convert FDL'd manuals for software that are held in wikis or other MMCs to CC-By-SA - I've not found any major GNU software affected (Gnash's manual wiki is FDL 1.2 without an "or later", for example) but it looks like the German-language OpenOffice.org docs could be converted (the US-language ones are LGPL already), as could Azureus manuals;
2. it narrowly fails to convert some of the free software manuals which had been harmed by mis-application of the FDL (usually including the Front Cover Text "a GNU manual" when it's not a GNU manual, which I think would make publishing it some type of fraud) followed by a licensor becoming uncontactable.
Did anyone have an inkling that this was coming and kept pumping FDL'd manuals into a wiki just in case? ;-)
[ENDS]
Now that reply I mentioned...
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
It was public in so much as I was criticising your conduct, which I find to be inappropriate and not conducive to a productive debate.
What I find "inappropriate and not conducive to a productive debate" is making surprising claims such as
[...] The FSF defined "free" documentation long before Debian or (I presume) you did.
(Noah Slater, 2008-11-04 15:01 +000)
and then totally cutting out the request for a link to that definition, in a similar fashion to how a source link gets cut when accusing me of misrepresenting a quote. Cute editing. Pick and choose which questions to answer, why not... but I expect if I tried that, I'd be hauled over hot hail.