FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

   >    That's why it's harmful. If it wasn't allowed by the license, it
   >    could simply be prohibited by enforcing the license. If you don't
   >    think the outcome (as I described in an extreme form) is harmful,
   >    then we just have to disagree. I think it's harmful, so I don't
   >    like the FDL.
   > 
   > That you consider it harmful is one thing, it doesn't make the clauses
   > harmful in it self.  

   Alessandro and I described scenarios with outcomes that follow from
   what the FDL clauses allow (1) and those outcomes we consider
   harmful (2).

   (1) was derived by logical conclusion. Your only refutation to them
   that I can see, that the FSF could *require* copyright assignments
   (rather than ask for them), has been disproven.

The FSF _requires_ copyright assignments for works to be incoperated
into a GNU project (not all, but most).  If it cannot get a copyright
assignment for a change, the change isn't incoperated.

   [...] So far, you haven't tried to explain your opinion (i.e., why
   you don't consider these scenarios problematic, or else which
   benefits the FDL gives that would justify the problems), [...]

Once again you resort to outright lying.  I have repeatedly shown why
invariant sections make sense: You do not need the right to modify
what I think about fluffy puppies.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html also explain is well.