FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Frank Heckenbach]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> The moment you want to make it so that what _I_ wrote is something else,

That's not only legally not allowed, that's a plain impossibility.
Nobody can "make it so that what [you] wrote is something else",
unless they have a past-manipulating science-fiction device. They
can perhaps make it *appear* that what [you] wrote is something
else, or something else, but what you write is just silly.

If you really believe (and not just claim this to continue a lost
argument) that defamation was allowed if the license doesn't
explicitly prevent it, do you therefore believe everyone is allowed
to add diffamation in GFDL non-invariant sections, or GPL/LGPL
works, BSD-licensed works, CC-licensed works, public domain works,
etc.? (Whether these works are documentation, other forms of
writing, computer programs, art or whatever is irrelevant, as
defamation can be done in any of them, see e.g. the shooter program
example.)

> > 	Sorry, but if the documentation of a free program has FDL, then it can
> > contain invariant sections, so that I am limited :)
> 
> Wrong. Only if it _has_ invariants.

Or if those can be added. This is, always under the FDL, as the FDL
doesn't permit me to forbid future contirbutors from adding
invariant sections.

Frank

-- 
Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)