Free Music License?
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Thu Aug 25 08:17:27 UTC 2005
> Then those people are liable for defamnation. They are not if I
> change what you wrote and gave explicit permission to do so.
If and only if you gave permission to attribute incorrect
statements to you, surely?
Yes, and the GPL does this, and so does the GFDL in non-invariant
sections. Hence the need for verbatim-only sections.
In general, copyright and reputation are two mostly independent
things and rightly so.
Sure, one is law, the other one isn't.
For example, I consider having to print the adverts ("invariant
sections") with a subset of the work painful, to the needlessly
wasted trees as well as me. Generally too much pain, like using BSD
with the obnoxious ad clause code, but worse.
Your comparison doesn't make sense, the old BSD license is for
software, the GFDL is for books, manuals, etc.
> You obvioulsy don't get the difference between non-functional and
> functional works, please try and figure out why they are
> different before continuting with these comparisons.
You obviously don't get that your distinction is entirely
The same can be said for you who consider them the same.
More information about the Discussion