Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
ajdlinux@gmail.com wrote:
>Personally I think that DFSG#5 does not require that anonymity be
>protected, but I think that the requirement of adding the names is an
>additional cost - it could be technically impossible for example, or
>it could incur another cost such as being persecuted or arrested or
>similar, which only anonymity/pseudonymity could protect against. So I
>think it is definitely a bad clause.
Come on. This "everything is a cost" meme is becoming silly.
The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: