Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible,
> > but we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
> [...]
> Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible.
I don't think it is. I wrote that pseudonymous publication seems
possible. Please stop arguing about anonymous publication: it isn't.
> 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...
I think it does, but the question is whether it is necessary to identify
the contributor among the contributors, or among the population. As I
wrote, we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
> 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?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html says:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free
software as well.
Note, it is a method, not something that itself requires all ... versions
are free software. Later:
Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or
without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change
it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
I suggest that this means that if a restrictable copyleft licence is
used, the restrictability must also be passed along. Finally, the
actual definition:
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then
we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's
code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms
are unchanged.
Like many people, I also thought it was about `requiring all modified
and extended versions of the program to be free software as well' but
it's not. It was just used to do that when FSF felt like it.
Sorry to shatter illusions. FDL is a shameful example of a copyleft
used to stop things being always free software, but it is a copyleft
nonetheless.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: