FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[MJ Ray]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org>
> [quote unattributed in body]
> >  Why is different the "free" as in freedom concept for documentation
> >  from the concept of "free" as in freedom for "software"?
> 
> It isn't that different, the four freedoms still apply.  The
> difference is that the content isn't a functional work, [...]

Have you read the FDL? The preamble starts:
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."

Note that it claims the FDL purpose is for functional work.

Of course, the desire for those freedoms extends beyond whatever
the judgement of the day about what is "functional" or what is
"effective freedom".

> Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to
> modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I dedicated
> the book. [...]

Someone modifying your essay should not modify your thoughts!
Please consult a mental health expert if you find it does!
I think it's as reasonable to base my essay on the work of a
more talented author as it is to base my programs on the work
of a more talented hacker. Why not?

I'm less sure about dedications, but I can think of times when
it would be good to rededicate a book.

> Debian consideres _everything_ software, which is simply bogus.

No, many DDs consider that debian only distributes software
in the main archive, which is computer storage after all,
and debian considers everything there against the DFSG. This
is not the same as claiming to consider everything software,
which would be bogus (for example, my desk).

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask