Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works
On 13-Feb-06, 14:17 (CST), Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com> wrote:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other references around are sufficient to disable this type of
> enforcement of the license.
>
> I don't know where are these references (probably RMS comments), but, as
> we agree it is a bug in the license, it's quite possible that such text
> exists (there is a message from RMS saying he never thought this could
> be applied with GFDL terms).
This "bug" has existed in the license for more than two years; it was,
in fact, discussed during the "public comment" period. Several smart
and dedicated people have tried to get RMS et. al. to amend the license
to clarify this and other problematical parts of it. They have not been
able to do so. I think that makes it pretty clear that using "notes from
RMS" to bypass this license term is unlikely to work.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: