Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
>> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>>
>> Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
>> factual history. Clearly, it is practicable to remove them, even if
>> that makes the work inaccurate or incomplete. You can't just add them
>> back, else you've not satisfied the conditions. This is a milder
>> version of the "invariant sections" method of restricting
>> modifications of works released under FDL.
>
> Oh, come on. We still can declare a document non-free if an author
> tries to exercise his rights in an unacceptable way.
This is not a viable interpretation. A freely licensed work must give a
reasonable guarantee that the work will *remain* freely licensed. A work
which becomes non-free upon the whim of a copyright holder was never free.
> The clause
> explicitly does not apply to previously distributed copies which are
> impractical to modify, so Debian would be on the safe side here.
How? As MJ said, it's clearly "practical" to remove the author's name in
places where it would nevertheless be a grievous restriction.
> BTW, in Germany, the existence of the clause implies that the author's
> position is _weakened_ to some degree because she already has such a
> right, and there's no explicit limit of practicality.
I find this hard to believe; I suspect you are confused.
Assume that the author has granted unlimited permission to make derived
works. (Otherwise, obviously, the author can make whatever demands he
wants.) Please point me to the provision in German law which states that
*despite* granting such permission, the author has the right to have all
references to him, of any sort whatsoever, expunged from any derived work.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: