[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CodeIgniter license

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:41:11 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Steve McIntyre:
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> >>Its requirement for the modifier's name to be recorded is also a
> >>concern. I think the “Dissident” test is violated by this.
> >
> > Which means nothing; it has no solid grounding in the DFSG.
> We need to keep track of the copyright situation of a work, otherwise
> there is no way to know if we'll be able to actually keep our promise
> of DFSG-freeness.  This rules out anonymous contributions to a certain
> extent.

I respectfully disagree: we need to keep track of the copyright
situation, not of the identity of the copyright holder.

Many copyright laws recognize the status of pseudonymous and even
anonymous works.
The Berne Convention has provisions for those kinds of works:
article 7 paragraph (3)
article 15 paragraph (3)

In my own personal opinion, *as long as the DFSG-freeness of the work
is clear*, we should not reject something *just because* it is a
pseudonymous or anonymous work.

Of course, the conclusion is different, *whenever the work does not
clearly comply with the DFSG*: in that case, a pseudonymous or anonymous
work should be treated exactly as a problematic work whose copyright
holder is (or has become) unreachable...

Back to the initial topic: I personally think that a license which
forces me to disclose my own identity in order to distribute a file
modified by me fails DFSG#1, since being forced to disclose one's own
identity can be a fee.
A more detailed explanation of this issue (found in another license)
can be read in

 Need some pdebuild hook scripts?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpmZpLhPYnW6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: