FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Mon Feb 13 22:56:46 UTC 2006
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Because you can't make a GPLed program non free against the authors
> Neither can you make a GFDLed document non-free against the authors
Never claimed that, I explained that what I see problematic is that you
can insert invariant sections that speak against the original author, or
his believes, and they will be not only invariant but not removable!
> I think it is better to simply agree to disagree about the GFDL, just
> like one has to agree to disagree about BSD-like licenses vs. copyleft
It's not quite the same thing, but anyway it seem you have strong
unchangeable feelings about the FDL so I won't argue further.
> But others have already explained this point very well, and more
> than theory real facts shows that.
> Not really. People have quoted specific instances, inparticular
> Netfilter, where you had one person who wrote the bulk of the work. I
> don't know who has written the bulk, or even who the copyright holder
> is of the guts of Linux. Maybe you do, but I don't...
I simply don't mind, I see facts as they are, actually I know of no
major violation that is both public and not addressed, that means the
GPL is strong and that Linux _is_ defensible. The day that will change
I'll say you were right. But actually facts speak in the opposite
More information about the Discussion