FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   The fact that _you_ have an opinion does not mean all other are
   wrong or lying or absurd, etc.

I never claimed that.  Frank has repeatedly stated that I have not
explained this or that when I cleary have.  This is where I'm calling
Frank a liar.  That he has a different opinion is not even related to
this.

   By flooding the list of mails [...]

I reply on ocassion to mail in a batch like fashion, that you dislike
this practise is really not my problem, sorry.

   Summarizing the positions seen so far are these:

   Software:
    A) anything representable on a digital medium
    B) only programs, data is not software
    C) some mid position

   GNU FDL:
    1) it is bad because it is not free software (with meaning A)
    2) it is ok because it is a free documentation license (software as B)
    3) it has some problems but it is ok
    4) problems outweight benefits

   Generally the problems are caused by the fact that GFDL include
   invariant sections or that the text of the license is too difficult to
   read and/or apply.

   That's all I think and I have not seen any opinion changing by an inch
   in the last days. So please let's all just stop here unless there is
   something really new to add to the discussion.

Beating ones head against another hard head is quite a fun thing to do
though, also a very good expeirence since it will open up differenet
doors.  For example, my belief that invariant sections are a good
thing has been strengthed, and that the GFDL is to complex as a
license has also been strengthened.

Cheers.