Jimmy Wales wrote:

I couldn't possibly disagree more, I think. *Disallowing* anon edits would not be in the spirit of the GNU FDL. I just don't know where this idea is coming from that the attribution requirement extends beyond the identification that someone actually gives us. It certainly doesn't come from the law, or from the license itself.

I'd tend to agree with this interpretation --- my reading of the GFDL is that it's informally saying "you have to keep the original attribution information, with the exception that you don't have to keep more than five authors". If somebody published a book anonymously under the GFDL, then presumably you could make derived versions of that book with no author attribution. At the very most, you could say "originally published anonymously." Which I think is the same situation here -- "this article contributed to by User2, JonDoe, and several anonymous authors."

-Mark

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