GDFL vs GPL (Was Re: [Bashdb-devel] Upcoming changes for potential Debian release)

[R. B. <ro...@pa...>]

Matthias Klose writes:
 > I actually proposed to relicense or dual license the docs. The latter
 > would have the advantage, that it could be merged back to the bash
 > docs which have the same license for the docs (GPL)

I've solicited the help of someone more competent at this than I. If
there are no "Invariant Sections" then GDFL is the same as GPL. Does
Debain have a problem with documents that are GDFL that don't have any
invariant sections? 

The only invariant section I see is in the current bashdb reference
manual is what I would call FSF boilerplate in the info documentation:

  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
  any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
  Invariant Sections being ``Free Software'' and ``Free Software Needs
  Free Documentation'', with the Front-Cover Texts being ``A GNU
  Manual,'' and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.

  (a) The Free Software Foundation's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have
  freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software.  Copies
  published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU
  development.''

I'm trying to understand the objection is to this. There is a saying
that "the freedom for you to wave your fist ends at the tip of my
nose". With freedom comes responsibility. People are free and welcome
to make technical improvements or even make it technically
worse. However the philosophical stuff they are not free to change at
present.