Re: [ox-en] Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <markj cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:21:07 GMT
Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
So the worries of Thomas that someone may add invariant racist stuff
or things like that is not covered by the GFDL. The logic Benja sees
is regulated with substantiated rules and I see absolutely no problem
with this.
There's no problem with having to include their racist stuff verbatim if you
want to use their modifications to the main body of the text? Did I
understand you correctly?
6 days ago MJ Ray wrote:
Me neither. I normally suggest using plain GPL or the DSL for copyleft
books. http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
How about explaining the differences instead of dumping just another
link?
OK, just in case anyone hasn't yet followed it. Broadly speaking, the DSL
was intended to be a GPL-like licence for non-programming works. It has
none of the "invariant" loopholes.
Can anyone see a problem with that?
If you had made the effort to check the differences you would have
noted that there are little. IMHO the GFDL is only a more elaborate
version of this license.
I prefer to say "nobbled," I think.
Particularly the logic mentioned above is
included in that license as well under "4. MODIFICATION":
I'll have to read back to see why that's relevant, sorry. I may answer
later.
MJR
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/