discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Terrence Enger ####@####.####
Date:
12 Apr 2004 15:55:03 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20040412115448.00ec82e4@mail.look.ca>
At 08:25 2004-04-12 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>(I would also expect that software-community social traditions and
>courtesy would tend to protect you and your firm: For example,
>tradition strongly favours the right of any prior author to, at a
>minimum, have his name removed from a work retroactively if he feels it
>now poorly reflects his original contribution to it.)
>
[snip]
>
>Short of that, I've sometimes used a rather wildly creative concept
>invented by my friend (and current _Linux Journal_ editor) Don Marti,
>which he calls "reverse basstard copyleft": You may issue derivatives
>of this personal essay of mine, provided that you remove all attribution
>to me and assert your own authorship in all practical media. (You may
>not put words in my mouth, but you may reuse my words in any perverted
>way you like as long as you shoulder all the blame.)
>
>Reverse bastard copyleft isn't guaranteed to have any legal validity,
>but I offer it for whatever it's worth, as an interesting solution to
>the problem.
A few days ago, motivated by this discussion, I took a look at the
discussion of licence issues at the GNU and Debian web sites. I saw
no specific reference to a restriction of this kind. The Debian site,
however, does have a lot of other FAQs of the form "Aw, can't I add
just such-and-such small restriction", and all of these are answered
"No.". I continue to sulk and mutter unkind words under my breath.
Just my grumpy C$0.02 worth.
Terry.
