I'm linking this here, though i'd prefer to see it on the main page, because i think it gives a good breakdown of what can and can't be done with licenses, etc.
and i also don't want to lose this website link ;)
There are two identical bullets in §8 describing GFDL 1.2, they differ only in KDE approval. Why is that? Is it a way of legally saying that unapproved licenses are allowed?
Should it be assumed that documentation that bears no licensing metadata is GFDL?
Versions of the FDL after 1.2 require e.V. approval - a safeguard since we cannot foresee future licenses.
Our license statements do need some clarification, and someone is already working on this, but since there are legal implications it isn't a quick job.