Creative Commons people working on

Imran wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> on a Lessor GNU FDL.  Then we would need the GNU people add a line to 
>> GNU FDL  2.0 granting any GNU FDL content without invariant sections,
>> back/front cover texts etc to be relicensed under either the CC-by-sa or 
>> the  LGFDL  
>
>Not going to happen. The FSF won't allow relicencing unless they
>believe it is in the interest of all GFDL users, which it isn't. 

How in the world would allowing no-option GFDL text to be interchangeable with 
the CC equivalent license /not/ be in the best interests of GFDL users? 
Anybody who does not want their GFDL text to be redistributable under the CC 
by-sa license will probably already have implemented invariant sections which 
would make it impossible for third parties to legally use that text under the 
CC by-sa. But people who do not use any of the invariant options in the GFDL 
are much more likely to want their text to be used by other licenses that are 
very similar in spirit to the the GNU FDL. 

We are also by far the largest user of the GNU FDL license. So our wants and 
needs should be considered to be very important to the GNU people. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)