On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 10:08 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >> So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be
> >> overly restrictive otherwise.
>
> TC> Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux
> TC> kernel.
>
> I don't see how that applies. Yes, I must identify myself in order
> for my changes to be accepted into Linus's tree (and meet various
> coding standards and such), but my freedom is not restricted because
> I'm still allowed to anonymously modify and redistribute as long as I
> comply with the GPL. Under this license I am not, or so it seems.
>
> Or, to put it another way, a license would definitely not be
> considered free if it restricted modifications to those upholding a
> certain coding standard, yet the Linux kernel requires adherence to
> standards for acceptance into the main tree and is not any less free
> because ot it.
Your analysis is incorrect, insofar as positing that the clause in
question makes this license non-free. Case in point: the Open
Publication License with no optional clauses is considered a free
(documentation) license by the FSF[1], but it contains a verbatim copy
of the clause in question. (It also includes a verbatim copy of the
inclusion clause you cited earlier, and from reading over both of them,
I wouldn't be surprised if one was the basis for the other.) In any
case, license proliferation is annoying. :-)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part