Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version,
If this requires
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
> modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
>
> List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
> responsible for authorship of the modifications
On 2003-10-09, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
> modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
>
> List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
> responsible for authorship of the modi
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
> anonymous copyright holder.
So, use a pseudonym. This is only a problem if you live in a country
where it is illegal to use a pseudonym and you are very law-abiding
dissident and cannot bri
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 12:05 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Surely an "entity" is lose enough to include, say, a Chinese Dissident
Collective created on the spot.
I don't know if an entity has to be a legally-recognized entity (e.g.,
a corporation) or not --- hence the question mark
On 09 Oct 2003 17:49:36 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding
> new issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the
> existing ones>
I have been reliably informed by the author of the license
that the d
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
>> an entity recognized by the law.
>
> Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> his actual name.
I've seen lots of files copyrighted by "Monty" or
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >
> > A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
> > explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
>
> > So I wonder how it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) a tapoté :
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
> >> an entity recognized by the law.
> >
> > Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> > his actu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
> >> an entity recognized by the law.
> >
> > Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> > his actual
Mathieu Roy said:
> A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
> explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
>
> "0. This License applies to any program or other work which
> contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 16:29, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > I'd think so. Certainly the copyright is valid, and people can and do
> > release,
>
> Why is it certain?
The Berne convention says so, that'd be why the copyright is valid. And
if it isn't valid, then its in the public domain.
> A book under
13 matches
Mail list logo
