Re: GFDL - status?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:47:42PM -, MJ Ray wrote: How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and they must not be documentation). I'm not saying the complete work is DFSG-free. I'm just trying to give a possible reason why it is named free document*ation* licence. A free abstract thing that cannot be instantiated in a free form is not free, in my opinion. What good are rights if one can't exercise them? We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp48IWBAtHI4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like this, it wouldn't be possible to be in Debian, but the linker itself would not be caught by DFSG as long as it didn't charge for distribution of the compiler, wouldn't it? Generally I agree with you, but some of the claims made on this list seem to assume that document and documentation mean the same. They don't, and that's the root of this, IMO. What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing clause? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
migrating away from the FDL
Hi guys, No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the FDL's text at the time, due to the fuzz I heard being made about the FDL I recently did so, and although I do not agree with all the arguments I've seen in this mailinglist's archives, I certainly do agree with some of them. As a result, I want to relicense all my FDL-licensed documents under another license (GPLv2). My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Any insights would be appreciated. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: GFDL - status?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing clause? If a license had a clause requiring that anyone who received the work (or any derivative work) must also receive a pickle, the work (i.e., the software itself) would be non-free, yes. Imagine having to include a pickle in a cvs upload! Though I'm not sure exactly what pickle-passing clause you're referring to since there were a couple discussed, I think the above is as closely analogous to the GFDL as you can get with a pickle. ;) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the FDL's text at the time, due to the fuzz I heard being made about the FDL I recently did so, and although I do not agree with all the arguments I've seen in this mailinglist's archives, I certainly do agree with some of them. As a result, I want to relicense all my FDL-licensed documents under another license (GPLv2). My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? If the copyright holders all agree, you can relicense it however you want. There's no requirement that the work be changed before the license can be changed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpprdUXzcTBO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, Yes. or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? No. Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, No. or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Yes. -- Henning Makholm Punctuation, is? fun!
Re: migrating away from the FDL
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). (I'm not a lawyer! But I'm sure someone will object if I'm saying crap). Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:09:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote: We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like If it was an eg. BSD-licensed linker packaged with a non-free compiler, sure. I could simply remove the non-free parts. If the linker's license required that it be packaged with the non-free compiler, however, then the linker would not be free software, either. Likewise, if a document's license requires that it be packaged with a non-free manifesto, the document isn't free, either. There would be fewer problems if invariant sections were only immutable, not unremovable. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
--- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). No one has surveyed DDs on this question, have they? You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. What sort of risk do you mean? I don't see the grave dangers that would arise if Debian were to decide that what it wants to include only free documents with the free software in its main archive and to relegate encumbered documents to an auxiliary archive. Debian and the FSF can survive disagreement on this point. -- Thomas Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just an ordinary relicensing question, after all). Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless reactions on my part. I'm sorry.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:40:50PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. I think you are exaggerating a tad. This person came to us asking how to relicense software he wrote. We only gave him information on how to do so. If he wanted to relicense software in non-APSL licenses, we would have given him that information too (which would probably have been very similar). To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. Most of the people who you see as the vocal minority of DDs are people who are very vocal anyway. We've even had the original authors of some of the documentation complain that they didn't like what the FSF did by changing the licensing, but that they couldn't do anything about it. I'm not a DD, and I think it's non-free. You can see the bug on glibc about it. That's part of why glibc took forever to get into testing. Other bugs have been filed on gcc docs. This problem is not going away. Also, I don't see how the future of the project can be at risk over a non-free license. It is so obviously non-free that if it were a) by anyone else but the FSF and b) not so deeply ingrained in our archives, everything licensed under it would be extirpated from main at once. For example, look at section 4. If my original document included a section Entitled History that contained a 10,000 word Ode to My Goldfish (thank you whoever came up with that brilliant idea), nobody else could remove it. That would be obviously non-free. Let me take this opportunity, in case I haven't already, to announce that any document, software, or other copyrightable work that I have created or to which I hold copyright that is licensed under any version of the GNU Free Documentation License (including draft versions) is hereby licensed under the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation, version 2 only. That should take care of the GFDL'd manpage that I submitted to fix a bug. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpP0NUjL8qqg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Op za 19-07-2003, om 22:40 schreef Florian Weimer: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. No, it is not. To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Please do not consider me part of that 'vocal minority', as you describe it. It may not be my opinion that the FDL is suitable for things I, personally, wrote; that does not mean I consider it entirely non-free. In a similar, although opposing way, even though I certainly do consider the BSD license a free license, I would not consider it suitable for things I, personally, write. In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things. I believe that many Debian Developers agreed with the DFSG because they are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not the Debian Freeness Guidelines, or sth similar. However, since I'm currently still forming my opinion on that subject, I'd rather not discuss it -- at least not yet. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the FDL's text at the time, due to the fuzz I heard being made about the FDL I recently did so, and although I do not agree with all the arguments I've seen in this mailinglist's archives, I certainly do agree with some of them. As a result, I want to relicense all my FDL-licensed documents under another license (GPLv2). My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Any insights would be appreciated. Seen this? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00052.html That's as bulletproof as I could make it. It should suffice in any reasonable jurisdiction. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpIi63joeURW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst wrote: In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things. I believe that many Debian Developers agreed with the DFSG because they are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not the Debian Freeness Guidelines, or sth similar. However, since I'm currently still forming my opinion on that subject, I'd rather not discuss it -- at least not yet. By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html Let me quote the relevant paragraph: Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms. It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do. ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it (functionally), and redistribute modified versions. It is ok to have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you want to make. Note the provisos functionally and substantively. Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. Peace, Dylan (IANADD)
Joint Authors and Nonexclusive Licenses Re: Transfer of copyright on death
## DISCLAIMER. The following is not legal advice, but a general recitation of the law. Seek counsel of an attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice. --- Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセー ジ： Andrew Stribblehill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The sole maintainer collaborated with another author in writing the program, and they have joint copyright. He would like to get it relicenced under a standard licence but the other author has now died. Is there any way to get it changed? Joint authorship is defined in U.S. law inthe Copyright act and requires intent by the parties to make a unitary work that is inseparable or interdependent parts. 17 USC 101. There's a classic case that discusses the intent and other elements regarding a play about Jackie MOMS Mabley. Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500 (2nd Cir. 1991). It looks like the authors might have been in a U.K. jurisdiction. You might look around at this UK link and note the distinction with the US statutory approach. http://www.publicartonline.org.uk/practical/contracts/jointauthor.html That's the law on Joint Authorship. Assuming a US outcome you might consider the following: Joint authors may make all the nonexclusive licenses they like. Perhaps the surviving authors be interested in this aspect. Reading on MySQL and other dual-licensing schemes might be useful for the surviving author. Consider also that any exclusive license must be (have been) in writing and with the agreement of all the joint authors. Perhaps the surviving author would be interested in free software license grants on exclusive and non-exclusive basis? Also consider joint authorship is informed by property law concepts of tenancy in common but there are also some statutory gotchas regarding termination renewal and such that relate to survivorships. I can provide you some citiations is you'd be interested in doing some more reading. Good luck. Mail me directly if anyone would like more on this subject. -- James Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo! http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
