FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Frank Heckenbach]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

>    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.

Never mind that Alessandro's and my examples specifically involved
the change *not* being incorporated into the original project. Just
keep repeating your phrases without looking at the context.

> [...]
>
>    Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens
>    (similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.
> 
>    Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're
>    perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting
>    at aliens, you're now shooting Shia Muslims, as an example.
> 
> They had to add new material to do this, i.e. change the pictures of
> the monsters into Shia Muslims.  So it isn't as simple as
> `modification'.

OK, so changing is not modification, I see. Please go on ...

Frank

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