FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to
   > modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I
   > dedicated the book.

   You're talking about books but the argument was about, say, the the
   gcc manual.

A manual is a type of a book.  It makes sense for manuals as well.

   And documentation of software belongs to the software itself as
   much as the source code.

Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on the case.  But the GFDL does not cause
any problems with mixing code and documentation in the same package.

   > You aren't limited anywhere when you modify free documentation of
   > a free program.  This is like saying that you are limited by the
   > GPL to create non-free works, which is simply nonsense.

   I could interpret your message as saying that GFDL was not free,
   otherwise, its sense is unclear to me.

I fail to see how you could interpret my message as that.

   The main question I see about this was: Why are manuals/docs of GNU
   GPLed programs not under GNU GPL license, a license that is
   bullet-proof, easily understood (in comparison to GFDL, at least)
   and also practically useful?

Because it doesn't make sense to license manuals/documentation under
the GPL.  Software and manuals are different type of works.  You don't
use the GPL as the license for music or pictures.

I suggest that you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html