On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 03:01 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
But copyright is not the [only] thing I said about. I said
not about copyright, but about normal mode of operation, which is
orthogonal to the copyright itself.
Have you seen Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> of
October 5, where I address this directly?
Plagiarism and|or corruption of social, political and,
especially religious texts was unanimously considered harmful and
was punishable a millennia before invention of the first copyright
law[*]. This was solely in the interest of public, without any
care about author's revenue.
First, I'm going to mostly ignore religious texts because, quite
frankly, the historical treatment of religion is nothing to aspire to,
and can briefly be explained as "wars, executions, and torture." The
idea that there even exists a "true" version of most religious texts is
silly; many, such as the bible, were passed down orally for a good part
of their history, for example. And they always have been treated as a
plaything by politicians. No one can truly (and provably) claim to have
the Bible as handed down by God.
Regarding the corruption of texts, the DFSG does not require that. I
could, for example, release this email (arguably, a political text)
under a DFSG-free license with the condition that if you modify it, you
clearly state you have done so, and that you do not imply I endorse
your modifications. I could even go so far as to demand you release it
under a different title.
Regarding plagiarism, I can also require that derivative works give me
 Among other reasons, because non-existent entities can't write
Sorry, couldn't resist!
 incl. the Comfy Chair.
- Re: GFDL
- From: Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru>