On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:28AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > OK, let's take a more likely scenario. Alice writes a manifesto for Free > > Software. Bob subtly edits it to become a manifesto for Open Source. If Bob > > says "Document edited by Bob, based on an original by Alice. (c) Alice 1999, > > (c) Bob 2002", then it is likely that most readers would believe Alice's > > position to be insignificantly different to Bob's. > > > > An appropriate license needs to require Bob to make clear that that is > > likely not the case. > > The only way that Alice is going to prevent her work from being > misused is to make it non-modifiable. That is why the FSF makes the > GPL unmodifiable. If you have concerns like that, then you need a > non-free license.
I don't think most authors are worried about it being used as the basis for an "opposing" document, just that they might be overly closely associated with such a document. Hence the requirement not for a non-free license, but for clarity in the area of attribution. I believe Branden is bearing this in mind, so we can probably stop worrying about it until we see his proposal... -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give him an evasive answer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
