Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
>>> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
>> Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
>
> ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
> you mean BY-SA? That shares the troublesome clause 4a of
> BY.
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Reply to: