Marco d'Itri wrote:
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr wrote:I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this "discrimination") in some improbable made up situation it is obviously incidental and not intended by the license.
Can't the license then simply be ammended, rather then people having to make educated guesses what's probable and what's not so probable?
That has worked in the past, afair, and in general it should be simpler for the copyright holder to ammend the license to allow distributions of anonymous changes than to have to spend time debating probabilities and intent.
Purely practically speaking, of course. cheers, daibor topic