Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
On 12/11/06, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> I think that this license does not allow anonymous or even
> pseudonymous publication.
This is was I suspect, too.
Personally I think that DFSG#5 does not require that anonymity be
protected, but I think that the requirement of adding the names is an
additional cost - it could be technically impossible for example, or
it could incur another cost such as being persecuted or arrested or
similar, which only anonymity/pseudonymity could protect against. So I
think it is definitely a bad clause.
[...]
> > 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.
Actually this is exactly what the FSF is doing for LGPLv3: the first
draft is phrased as a set of additional permissions on top of the GPLv3.
OK, I didn't know that.
--
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: