Subject: Re: OpenSources "opensourced" [real one, sorry for the premature emission]
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:56:58 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Jesus" == Jesus M Gonzalez <> writes:

    Jesus> 	Of course, the copyright holder can decide under which
    Jesus> conditions her job can be modified. I just wanted to stress
    Jesus> that in many circumstances, letting people modify a
    Jesus> document can be beneficial. And since many authors want to
    Jesus> be sure that no one is going to make false attributions
    Jesus> based on the modifications to the document, usually some
    Jesus> condition preventing this is desiderable.

    Jesus> 	But of course, many other people just don't care.

And of course I agree with your point here.

My point was not an overall disagreement.  But so many arguments turn
on "is libre software more so or less so" than other goods, that it's
important to quantify statements that "libre wares must [should,
usually] do X".

It's just not clear to me that "usually some condition preventing
this" is desirable; academia is a prominent counterexample (if you
allow me to abstract from the actual text, which is normally strictly
copyright, to the _ideas_, which are what we really worry about with
misattribution I believe).

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."