QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 30th July 2007, 1:30pm)
I am simply not going to waste my time contributing to a forum where people edit my posts after the fact without even asking me first.
That's duly noted, and I think we all respect your position. However, it is, or
was, an all-or-nothing proposition. If there had been only one or two people objecting out of the two dozen or so people whose posts were affected, that would have meant minority-rule, right? (I mean, putting aside the issue of who's really responsible for what around here.) By not asking you, I/we essentially prevented you from possibly being put in that precarious position. Also, Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.
So now the situation has changed, again, and we have to decide - in retrospect - if what I did was justified. Please, let's not jump the gun or operate under the assumption that I/we could have known in advance that all this stuff was going to happen.
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Mon 30th July 2007, 1:43pm)
GDFL violations, though, I think would invalidate the GDFL claim so GDFL wouldn't count and people then could copy GDFL content without attributing it.
First of all, quit transposing the D and the F - it's G
FDL!
General Free Distribution Liquor! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)
And no, it wouldn't invalidate the license just because someone who was responsible for enforcing it did something questionable... that's actually kind of a silly assertion, I'm afraid. However, one might easily suggest that it was grounds for taking away "oversight" powers from the person responsible for the questionable act in question.