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.