On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:09:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > 1) Some sort of identification of the author of the work is required > in order to allow people to exercise their DFSG guaranteed freedoms > upon a work. > > If we did not have some sort of identification of the copyright holder > of the work, the work is (probably) not properly licensed, and thus we > cannot make use of it at all. This seems to break most copyleft > schemes.[1]
Copyright notices can use aliases, right? I don't know anything about how enforcable that renders that person's copyright claim, but I don't think it renders the license invalid. > 2) The purpose (as I understand it) of the dissident test is to point > out licenses which require disclosure of information to inviduals to > whom the software has not actually been distributed. I think requiring communications with third parties is part of the Desert Island test--though I suppose it's related to both. I believe "don't make me identify myself" is part of the dissident test: a dissident identifying himself as the author of something can put him in personal danger; he should be able to modify and use the software without violating the license (eg. so, once he moves to Canada and identifies himself as the author of those changes, he doesn't find himself being sued for copyright violation). > 3) GNU GPL 2a) obstensibly requires this very same thing:[2] > > You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > 2: Others will probably argue that it doesn't, since 'stating that you > changed the files' doesn't necessarily mean that you actually have to > give your name. I don't think there's any debate here. You don't have to give your name. I've never seen a serious argument to the contrary. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
