Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:00, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
> > Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > [...] could
> > > apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
> > > document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
> > > that are unconscionable to the original author. [...]
> > >      
>
> (Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original
> author of the software)
>
>  
>
> > Why is this a problem? [...]
> >    
>
> At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't
> mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the
> modifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct
> license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it
> (i.e., put it in the public domain).
>
> If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the
> changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invariant section war, where
> I add an invariant rebuttal.
>
>
>
>  
That would give you a lot of incentive to write code that others would 
want to keep.  Sounds good to me.;-)

You have a choice of incentives:

1) money

2) ego

3) none.

You are choosing 3).  I know you won't choose 1).  I suggest you choose 
2), for all the reasons articulated in the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

If you are feeling sympathetic you might consider that persons like me 
are concerned that vendors will strip all information about who wrote 
ReiserFS out except for copyright notices that none of their users will 
see, slap their brand identity onto it, and ship, depriving me of all 
credit for my work on their product.  I say this, because that is 
exactly what slimy marketeers at startups do, and they do it a lot.  
Look at how many companies ripped off squid.

--
Hans