Free Music License?
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Mon Aug 22 10:24:21 UTC 2005
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org> wrote:
> There is a perfectly valid reason in not changing a non-functional
> work, like my memoirs, or your toughts about how much you love
> butterflies. You shouldn't be able to change what I or you thought
> about an issue.
Changing what you wrote does not change what you thought.
Changing what you wrote does not claim you thought it.
Attributing something you didn't write to you might.
The real problem is misattribution and invariant sections are a
very blunt tool for attacking that. If I want to misattribute
something to you, I don't need to use your expressions. I can
just plain make stuff up (as people often do to me) and
attribute it to you and your copyright licence won't matter.
Using a copyright licence for this only hurts friendly people
who like your work and want to re-use it. Bad people who want
to make you look bad will still make you look bad.
> I also might want to make this note to my wife non-removable, since
> the book would not have been possible without her support.
> For documentation, all this makes sense, for source code it does not.
Unmodifiable unremovable advertising, even for your wife and cookies,
does not make any more sense for documentation. Why not have a program
that pops up a window with the recipe and thanks at certain times?
Those things are called "nag boxes" for a reason.
> There is just no reason to accept such a restriction.
> Just because you cannot see the need for such a `restriction' doesn't
> mean that there are good reasons to protect ones freedom to have it.
You may have reasons, but they're probably not going to persuade
some that they're worthwhile when we make a different argument for
software in general. "good" is the pivot there.
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
More information about the Discussion