Re: Which license for a documentation?
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> I know what "please" means. What I fail to understand is what it is
>> that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
> Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the
> Debian Project as asserting this is wrong, and may be being deliberately
That was not what I meant to say. However, someone did suggest that
such a request would make the program non-free.
> There is a distinction between asking for credit for one's work, and
> requiring that those who use your work pay homage to in you some
> particular way.
Definitely. I still think a one-line mention of the author is a
rather low price for quality software. I understand that it could be
an inconvenience, but that inconvenience is for the author of the
program, not the users. If the author is willing to deal with it, he
should have the choice, calling anything else freedom is hypocritical
at best. If you would like to distribute a modified version, but are
unable to comply with the requirements you will simply have to refrain
from doing it. This may seen non-free, but if the program was not
even allowed to exist you would still not be able to distribute your
modifications, there being nothing to modify. Allowing the existence
of the program will give you more options, which you may or may not
choose to use.
I can understand that a distribution like Debian can desire to only
include software meeting some criteria for freedom, but this is
entirely separate from the question of allowing or disallowing
software failing some of these criteria.
There are many, especially on this list, who disagree with me. I will
simply have to accept this and respect their opinions, since neither
of us are likely to change our opinions easily. This being the case,
continuing this discussion is probably pointless.