Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD (fwd)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:28AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > OK, let's take a more likely scenario. Alice writes a manifesto for Free
> > Software. Bob subtly edits it to become a manifesto for Open Source. If Bob
> > says "Document edited by Bob, based on an original by Alice. (c) Alice 1999,
> > (c) Bob 2002", then it is likely that most readers would believe Alice's
> > position to be insignificantly different to Bob's.
> >
> > An appropriate license needs to require Bob to make clear that that is
> > likely not the case.
>
> The only way that Alice is going to prevent her work from being
> misused is to make it non-modifiable. That is why the FSF makes the
> GPL unmodifiable. If you have concerns like that, then you need a
> non-free license.
I don't think most authors are worried about it being used as the basis
for an "opposing" document, just that they might be overly closely associated
with such a document. Hence the requirement not for a non-free license, but
for clarity in the area of attribution.
I believe Branden is bearing this in mind, so we can probably stop worrying
about it until we see his proposal...
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Give him an evasive answer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: