FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[simo]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Because you can't make a GPLed program non free against the authors
>    will.
> 
> Neither can you make a GFDLed document non-free against the authors
> will/wishes...

Never claimed that, I explained that what I see problematic is that you
can insert invariant sections that speak against the original author, or
his believes, and they will be not only invariant but not removable!

> I think it is better to simply agree to disagree about the GFDL, just
> like one has to agree to disagree about BSD-like licenses vs. copyleft
> licenses.

It's not quite the same thing, but anyway it seem you have strong
unchangeable feelings about the FDL so I won't argue further.

>    But others have already explained this point very well, and more
>    than theory real facts shows that.
> 
> Not really.  People have quoted specific instances, inparticular
> Netfilter, where you had one person who wrote the bulk of the work.  I
> don't know who has written the bulk, or even who the copyright holder
> is of the guts of Linux.  Maybe you do, but I don't...

I simply don't mind, I see facts as they are, actually I know of no
major violation that is both public and not addressed, that means the
GPL is strong and that Linux _is_ defensible. The day that will change
I'll say you were right. But actually facts speak in the opposite
direction.

Simo.