FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Peter Adolphs]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    You have repeatedly shown why _in_your_opinion_ invariant sections
>    make sense, without touching on the problems (fwiw, I think they
>    make sense, but the problems outweight the benetis).
> 
> I don't see them as problems, I have repeatedly explained why they are
> not problems and have repatedly stated that I do not see these issues
> as problems.

I can't see where you addressed the specific concerns that were raised
in the scenario of Alessandro and Frank: someone takes my FDL-licensed
document and adds some useful chapters to it, together with an invariant
section saying something that I find disrespectful or wrong, or that
makes the document illegal in some parts of the world (as pointed out by
MJR). What freedom do I have at this point? I see two basic options:
either (i) ignore the contributions or (ii) include them, but only
together with the new, unwanted invariant. Since (ii) is not an option,
I have to choose (i). I have to accept then that someone might profit
from my work but I cannot profit from his/her modifications and
additions to this work (which doesn't seem to be in the spirit of
Copyleft to me). Where did you address this specific problem that
someone deliberately adds an invariant section with some obviously
offensive remarks about his/her relation to the document in order to
keep anyone else from reusing added or modified parts of the document?

> It is exactly the same scenario of combining a GPLed
> work with a work which is licensed under an license which is
> incompatible with the GPL.  Both of which are free software.

Huh? I don't see what's in common between these scenarios. In the
scenario described by Alessandro and Frank, both the original and the
derived work were licensed under FDL (since a modified version of the
original FDL'ed document must be released "under precisely this
License"). I cannot see how someone else but the author could turn
GPL'ed code into GPL-incompatible code without breaching the license. So
why is it exactly the same scenario? Or what else do you refer to?

Peter.