Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:21:03 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > Well, does a "Published by anonymous" statement "crearly and legibly
> > identify you as the publisher" ?
> > I really doubt...
> >
> > Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible.
> > As for pseudonymous publication (which is something different, let's
> > remember), I don't know whether a "Published by BlackStar" statement
> > satifies the clause... maybe, or maybe not... more probably not...
>
> If 'BlackStar' can be traced easily to a person, then I suppose it
> does. e.g. if the work is distributed among a small group where one of
> them has that as a nickname or something. Or if the work actually
> lists some contact details - phone, post, email, etc.
If the real identity behind 'BlackStar' can be (more or less easily)
discovered, then 'BlackStar' is not a pseudonym: it's a nickname.
Yes.
When I say "pseudonym" I mean a virtual identity that (ideally) cannot
be traced back to the real identity behind it.
Something like a nym provided by a nym server, for instance.
I'm not sure what level is required - do they need to be simply
contactable online, or in real life, or what?
I think that this license does not allow anonymous or even
pseudonymous publication.
[...]
> > Does "copyleft" mean that modified versions must stay under the same
> > license?
> > Or does it mean that no additional restrictions may be placed on
> > modified versions?
> >
> > I think that the keystone of copyleft is the latter, not the former.
> > Or otherwise the LGPL would *not* be a (weak) copyleft license, as
> > it has a conversion-to-GPL clause.
>
> Um, the GPL is *more* restrictive than the LGPL. So modified versions
> can *remove* the permission to link with proprietary software. (I
> realise what you mean, but LGPL->GPL isn't the best example...)
You're right: wrong example... or wrong theory?
Is the LGPL a copyleft license, after all?
Maybe the "weak" adjective actually refers to this limited possibility
to add restrictions...
Well, it is a 'weak' license, with a 'weak' copyleft. Perhaps FSF
should have made the LGPL simply GPL+an exception, it would take away
all the GPL special-casing in the LGPL.
--
Andrew Donnellan
-- Email - ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)
-- Email - ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
Jabber - ajdlinux@jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Reply to: