On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Because you can't make a GPLed program non free against the authors > will. > > Neither can you make a GFDLed document non-free against the authors > will/wishes...
Never claimed that, I explained that what I see problematic is that you can insert invariant sections that speak against the original author, or his believes, and they will be not only invariant but not removable! > I think it is better to simply agree to disagree about the GFDL, just > like one has to agree to disagree about BSD-like licenses vs. copyleft > licenses. It's not quite the same thing, but anyway it seem you have strong unchangeable feelings about the FDL so I won't argue further. > But others have already explained this point very well, and more > than theory real facts shows that. > > Not really. People have quoted specific instances, inparticular > Netfilter, where you had one person who wrote the bulk of the work. I > don't know who has written the bulk, or even who the copyright holder > is of the guts of Linux. Maybe you do, but I don't... I simply don't mind, I see facts as they are, actually I know of no major violation that is both public and not addressed, that means the GPL is strong and that Linux _is_ defensible. The day that will change I'll say you were right. But actually facts speak in the opposite direction. Simo. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
