On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:40:32 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > The main clauses I'm concerned about are:
> >
> > Clause A.2:
> >
> > | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
> >
> > This fails to allow anonymous modifications
[...]
> I think the license clause permits pseudonymity,
I don't think so.
A pseudonym does not "identify" its owner, AFAICT.
It can help to tell various different nym owners apart (but remember
anyway that the same person *can* own more than one nym!), but it does
nothing to disclose its owner's identity (in fact, preventing such
disclosure is really the nym's job!).
> which would generally
> protect the modifier from harassment, but both interpretations are
> reasonable. I would be happier if the license were clearer on what
> kind of identification is permitted.
I think it *should* be clearer.
>
> > Clause A.2bis:
> >
> > | 2. The author be notified by email of the modification in advance
> > | of
> > | redistribution, if an email address is provided in the
> > | document.
> >
> > _If_ the document includes "an email address", this fails to the
> > Desert Island test, discriminates against people that do not have
> > Internet access (or anyway the possibility to send e-mail messages):
> > fails DFSG#5.
>
> In the license, this is listed as a request, separate from the
> definite requirements from the prevoius list. I do not think a
> reasonable person would interpret the request as a requirement.
As I said in the other reply, my fault in reading "required" where I
should have read "requested"! :(
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpaWhbxRVaAf.pgp
Description: PGP signature