Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > On the other hand, there's no warranty that each pseudonymous > contributor uses one pseudonym only: 'BlackStar' and 'RedBlood' could be > the same real person. > Hence, I don't know how much a pseudonym can help to "identify" a > contributor among other contributors...
If one hijacks an already-used pseudonym, it can't, so I feel using a previous contributor's pseudonym would not satisfy the licence. Once again, I remind myself to watch for developments on this topic. [...] > So, how come the LGPL is considered a copyleft license? > Or even the GFDLv2draft1, for that matter: it includes one or > two relicensing clause(s)... This is a very good question and I have no answer. > Am I completely off-track or is the FSF more and more inconsistent? You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. > BTW, going back to the original issue: can you suggest a better category > name than "Kills copyleft"? "Does not ensure freedom of modified versions." Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
