FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process
frank at g-n-u.de
Sun Feb 26 01:59:41 UTC 2006
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Alessandro and I described scenarios with outcomes that follow from
> what the FDL clauses allow (1) and those outcomes we consider
> harmful (2).
> (1) was derived by logical conclusion. Your only refutation to them
> that I can see, that the FSF could *require* copyright assignments
> (rather than ask for them), has been disproven.
> The FSF _requires_ copyright assignments for works to be incoperated
> into a GNU project (not all, but most). If it cannot get a copyright
> assignment for a change, the change isn't incoperated.
Never mind that Alessandro's and my examples specifically involved
the change *not* being incorporated into the original project. Just
keep repeating your phrases without looking at the context.
> Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens
> (similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.
> Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're
> perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting
> at aliens, you're now shooting Shia Muslims, as an example.
> They had to add new material to do this, i.e. change the pictures of
> the monsters into Shia Muslims. So it isn't as simple as
OK, so changing is not modification, I see. Please go on ...
Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan (7977168E)
More information about the Discussion