we have some folks who've thought about licenses a bit and may
offer help anyway.
that's my hope. I have chosen other licenses in the past without investigating
them thoroughly, so this time I want to be careful.
Bleh. Non-free means to promote freedom is a seriously flawed concept.
Just MO.
So, are you suggesting that freedom would be better served if the GNU manifesto
provided for modification? Note the manifesto's license:
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
> of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made.
Suppose the Manifesto were a free document. That would allow Microsoft's PR
flacks to "update" the Manifesto to exhort the user to protect corporate rights
to intellectual property, and illustrate how respecting End User License
Agreements stimulates not only the nation's, but the world's economy.
Would that serve the cause of freedom? The Free Software Foundation has never
allowed anyone to modify the GNU Manifesto, yet I don't think anyone can argue
that it is the seed from which Debian's Free Software sprouted.
I'm aiming to do the same thing with music, and I don't want the record industry
to put words in my mouth. Neither do I want to allow that of people who might
be well meaning but incompetent.
Mike
--
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow.
"I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak
out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared,
be in doubt, but don't be gagged."
-- John J. Chapman, "Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations"
http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
