Joey Hess wrote: > > AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent > > people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie, > > would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it > > posted to /. with your name on it!?) > > In case you aren't aware, the DFSG allows clauses that prevent this by > requiring the authors name be removed and/or that the name of the document > be changed.
Oh, I meant to add that in situations like that, lawsuits can be satisfying (I guess), but what you really have to do is get the record corrrected quickly, and legal mumbo-jumo in a license won't help much. -- see shy jo, in New York
