Re: GFDL v2 draft 1 analysis [long]
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: [...]
> On the other hand, there's no warranty that each pseudonymous
> contributor uses one pseudonym only: 'BlackStar' and 'RedBlood' could be
> the same real person.
> Hence, I don't know how much a pseudonym can help to "identify" a
> contributor among other contributors...
If one hijacks an already-used pseudonym, it can't, so I feel using a
previous contributor's pseudonym would not satisfy the licence.
Once again, I remind myself to watch for developments on this topic.
[...]
> So, how come the LGPL is considered a copyleft license?
> Or even the GFDLv2draft1, for that matter: it includes one or
> two relicensing clause(s)...
This is a very good question and I have no answer.
> Am I completely off-track or is the FSF more and more inconsistent?
You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.
> BTW, going back to the original issue: can you suggest a better category
> name than "Kills copyleft"?
"Does not ensure freedom of modified versions."
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: