On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: > MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote: [...] > > No. I think the outer-surfaces problem is just an obnoxious > > advertising clause, it seems unlikely that this particular licensor > > will try to enforce 'identified' in a bad way and upstream tracking > > is OK. > > I am confused as to whether the licensor will allow anonymous changes. > On the one hand, he says > > At the same time I think anonymous changes to code or docs should > indeed be disallowed. > > but on the other, he says > > The solution is to use a fantasy name for the author. It seems that upstream is willing to allow pseudonymous modifications, but not anonymous ones. But I agree that it's not really clear. Moreover the letter of the license seems to forbid both. Just to add more uncertainty, upstream seems to (wrongly) think that copyright laws by themselves disallow anonymous works: this makes his reasoning even less clear... :-( -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpAZwpDlE3sG.pgp
Description: PGP signature