FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[MJ Ray]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org>

> Sorry for being unclear, I meant that a manual isn't in its whole a
> functional work, and can contain non-functional parts, like an
> dedication.
> 
> >  Note that it claims the FDL purpose is for functional work.
> 
> ... with non-functional parts.

Were that true, then the FDL preamble would be an argument that the
FDL is not suitable for applying to invariant sections.

>    > 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!
> 
> Please consult a English teacher.

You first. It does make a difference whether we are seeking to
modify your essay or your thoughts. (I'm a native English-speaker,
with some problems, but illiteracy is not one of them TTBOMK.)

>   [... more flame bait ...]
> 
> Are you really incapable of having a leavel headed discussion without
> resorting to these kind of silly arguments? 

I think a level-headed discussion is impossible if you are going to
contradict the licence you claim to support. Please stick to the FDL.