FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > None of what Alessandro described is harmful, it is explcitly
   > allowed by the license.  You are claiming that there are problems
   > when there are none, it is like having people claiming that the
   > GPL has problems by disallowing a GPLed project being converted
   > into a non-free program.

   I must say the analogy is completely wrong, and, I'm sorry, almost
   specious here.

Care to explain why?

   > If you wish to have a way to enforce the copyright, then you will
   > need to have copyright papers.  Otherwise, you cannot enforce it
   > at all, it really doesn't matter what license you are using.  A
   > judge would love to hear "Sorry your Honour, but I couldn't
   > gather the copyright holders to actually sue the accused'.

   I do not think a judge would love that, probably an evil lawyer
   from the other side, but not the judge. I think the judge would
   actually like to judge facts not handle formalities.

The judge would infact throw the case out.  Only the copyright holder
can sue for infrigment.

   > In theory, anyone can go and make Linux a non-free program, since
   > it is simply impossible to enforce the license there.

   In practice I think this shows up to be false, otherwise it would
   have already happened, don't you think SCO would have already done
   that otherwise for example ?

It has happened, and it is continuing to happen.  Usually it is easily
solved though.

Cheers.