FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > reduce some kind of dissent against the GFDL, or the really silly
   > claims Werner did, they don't serve any purpose other than mud
   > tossing, and ignore the important points of the discussion.

   There are a lot of long term hackers and GNU people who disagree
   with you on this.  It is not just me and that are not only my
   claims.

I'm all for having a level headed discussion about the GFDL, but you
did make claims without proof like GNUpress being `shutdown', and the
GFDL somehow reducing the set of free manuals.  That is what I refered
to as mud tossing and silly arguments.  The GFDL isn't without
problems, it has many of them, far more than the GPL, and those
problems should be poitned out and solved.

For example, it might make sense to allow removal of invariant
sections after say 5 years after the copyright date or some such.
Personally, I don't know if that would be a good thing or not and
would have to think about it abit more to be able to decide if I like
the idea.

I think the major problem with this whole GFDL thing is that neither
party wants to budge.  One party considers it essentialy to have
invariant sections, and the other one doesn't.  So getting to a
compromise is simply impossible.

   Anyway, I see that further discussion won't change anything so I'll
   better spend my time to serve the community.

Well, who knows?  Maybe you can convince me that the GFDL is indeed as
bad as you claim it is. :-)