[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0

"Henning Makholm" <henning@makholm.net> wrote in message 87r7bdlfq7.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net">news:87r7bdlfq7.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net...
Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

All identifiers have scope; if the license doesn't specify, there's no
reason to think you can't use an identifier whose scope is limited to your
involvement in the project. :)

It's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are
_other_ reasonable interpretations as well; in particular one easily
imagines a court that would find that the "limited-scope identifier"
defense is a nonsense word-game and finds for the plaintiff (the
author who had sued a pseudonymous modificator for infringement).
Is it just me or is it hard to sue a pseudonymous modifier, becaue their real identiy is not known?

Also is it possible for somebody to enforce the copyright to a work they published anonymously
if they wish not to lose the anonimity?

Reply to: