> > This is not exactly accurate. RMS does allow some very heavy modifications > to > his works, at times. > > Here are examples: > RMS: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html > > My Modification: http://donhensley.com/right-to-write.html > > Some of mine is word for word copied from his, the rest is very > modified... > > I simply asked him if it was OK. Now I suspect it's the license you were > meaning, not RMS. > > Even then all RMS actually did when granting me permission was to ask that > the > terms of the license his was released under was followed (He was polite > about > the way he did that too --you can read his reply to my request at the link > to > my work). > > Because the GNU Free Documentation License does allow modified versions. > > 4. MODIFICATIONS > In part: "You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document > under > the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the > Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version > filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and > modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it." > >>From here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html > > So my asking, and his granting was a politeness on each of our parts (more > his > then mine). So long as I stayed withing the guidelines of the GNU FDL I > was > free to do my modification anyway. > > I asked because from my viewpoint I was about to fiddle around with a very > important work, and sometimes it's wise to simply be friendly... show a > little respect, as it were. > > And because of the way I wished to present my version, it would have been > awkward to do the full cover page, and so on, and while there is an > exception > for conditions like mine, where the cover page layout would not work well, > I > decided to seek permission from the actual source... in my example RMS > himself. > > I think being polite is always a good thing, and asking first is always > polite. I will admit I debated a long time about my wasting his (RMS) time > with my request, I finally decided based not so much on what I was doing, > as > I was reasonably sure he would agree with my reasons for doing it. And he > did. > > When you read my modified version (which I hope you like), I suspect you > will > realize it was more the shared dissatisfaction with the person's remarks > that > caused me to write it, rather then my prose, that made RMS feel favorably > towards my modification of his work. > > More on that subject here: http://duskpeterson.com/technopeasant/ > > BTW: the one thing not allowed is to change the license it's self. A > modifiable at will license is no license at all (Public Domain). > > Don. > ************************* > On Sunday 06 May 2007 12:15 pm, Guy Johnston wrote: > It may be true that what he means is similar to what I'm saying, but I > don't > think so. He allows verbatim distribution of all his essays, but never > distribution of modified versions, even if you do make it clear how it's > different from the original. > > -- > GNU/Linux is the future. > Join the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=4458 > Get the Real Facts: http://BadVista.org > > _______________________________________________ > Advocate mailing list > [email protected] > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate >
Thanks for bringing up the license thing. Missed that =) --- Lam YongXian Adolflam.com FSF member #5279 _______________________________________________ Advocate mailing list [email protected] http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
