Oliver Pereira wrote:
Can you quote anything from the GFDL which suggests
that anonymous edits
are in keeping with its spirit? I can't see anything which even hints at
that. In fact, since it explicitly talks of listing authors, it seems
obvious to me that its spirit is the exact opposite. If I have overlooked
anything in the license which suggests otherwise, please could you point
me to the bit I have missed?
I don't agree that the 'presumption' works that way. The right of
authors to write anonymously is unquestioned. So the presumption
should be that it's perfectly o.k. for anonymous authors to release
their work under the license *unless the license specifically forbids
it*.
The license is silent on the matter, therefore, under general
principles of freedom (in the sense of speech, not beer), which is the
foundational principle of GNU, then anonymous authorship is just fine.
I can ask RMS if you really want me too, but I think it's highly
HIGHLY unlikely that he would say "Oh, no, I didn't intend for people
to write things anonyous under the FDL. The talk about authorship is
supposed to imply that people are required to give their full name,
address, and social security number before they can use the license!"
I just don't see it.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to speak freely, even anonymously.
That's the spirit of GNU.
Going back into history, we see that the Founding Fathers of this
country advocated their radical ideas of freedom through anonymous
pamphlets. Freedom of speech, and privacy and anonymity, are closely
linked in history.
I have no idea where you get the idea that the default assumption is
that if the license doesn't explicitly permit people to write
anonymously if they want, that it is forbidden. Freedom doesn't mean
rules that say "whatever is not permitted is forbidden", it means that
"whatever is not forbidden is permitted".
--Jimbo