FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Sat Feb 25 11:49:41 UTC 2006
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
(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.
More information about the Discussion