discuss: Quality (Was: Re: Modifiability of documentation and software)
Subject:
Re: Quality (Was: Re: Modifiability of documentation and software)
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
28 Feb 2005 20:15:17 -0000
Message-Id: <20050228201514.GJ27314@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Machtelt Garrels ####@####.####
> However, I am still using the GFDL with invariant sections "Copyright
> information" and "Feedback", because I want the license to remain the same
> on my modifiable document, and I want to get the feedback as long as I am
> maintaining the document.
Just a comment (and not intended as any form of criticism of your
preferences in licensing): 1. In all jurisdictions I've studied, the
right of attribution is inherent in copyright law. I.e., it's unlawful
to remove your name as author from it. Given that your author credit
must by law be preserved, it should always remain pretty easy to contact
you to give you feedback, even if some nasty person posts a copy with
your mailto: URL link stripped.
2. Ensuring that the licence remain the same on derivative works can be
done by using any copyleft licence.
My point is that, although certainly you're correct that GFDL with
invariant sections can achieve the goals you identified, so can less
inflexible copyleft licences.
--
Cheers, I once successfully declined a departmental retreat,
Rick Moen saying that on that day I planned instead to advance.
####@####.#### -- Alan J. Rosenthal, in the Monastery
