On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:26:51PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
(2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights
(e.g. quoting you on a bibliography)
Is this trying to reverse the author name purge condition? I'm not
sure that appealing to fair use covers it.
Not the whole
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The PDL is very inconvenient to use.
And it doesn't appear to be a free license.
I certainly think it is less free that CC-BY. So I think that moving
towards CC-BY is a movement towards more free. Notice that many of my
reasons for wanting to switch come down to
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:07:47AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
For this reason, also, the usual suggestions won't help us.
That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous
pair of licenses?
Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Getting
Andrew Suffield wrote:
But you can approve a mangled variation on CC-BY, if you pretend that
it's really the same thing? So just 'clarify' it into the MIT
license...
Well... I'm asking about whether one can use a letter to clarify
ambiguities. For example, if it's not clear exactly what is
Hello,
I was hoping I could get an opinion on the free/non-free status of Sun's
Public Documentation License (I include it below). Here are two concerns:
* Section 3.3 says:
All Documentation to which You contribute must identify the changes
You made to create that Documentation and the
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's extremely distasteful for a license to
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:23:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[This is wildly OT for -vote, MFT set to -legal and CC:'ed, please
follow up there or privately.]
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:52:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Still, debian-legal
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:21:57 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
The Source Code for any
version of Licensed Product or Modifications that you distribute must
remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it
initially became available, or
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alright, then please help me understand. What exactly are the references
that you feel the license should permit, but the current wording doesn't?
I think it'd be reasonable for an author to require that his name be
purged from the list of
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous
pair of licenses?
Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Getting
anything changed is difficult and takes time. Before, the only license
Hello,
Jeremy just had an interesting idea. About using a dual license. In my
case, I would pick GPL/CC-BY. I just emailed a couple of people with the
idea, to test the waters.
I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the
GPL for documentation:
1) The GPL language
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using
the GPL for documentation.
They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The
GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite
flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don't
MJ Ray wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
It looks like the only problem is having to provide sources. If my team
goes for a dual GPL/CC-BY system, we can wiggle out of that easily. The
printed manual can be plain CC-BY, but you are always free to download the
Humberto Massa wrote:
Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as
defined in the file AUTHORS ...
Okay, how about this :
This document is (C) 2004 its contributors as defined in the section
titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) The GPL language talks about software.
Not really. Software is mentioned in the Preamble, in some clarifying
remarks in Section 7, and in Section 10 (referring to software
copyrighted by the FSF). Section 3 talks about media customarily used
for
MJ Ray wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The requirement to maintain a LEGAL file.
I don't think this one is really a problem; it's similar to the GPL
saying you must mark your modifications as such.
This LEGAL file doesn't seem to say that we have to leave the
contents we
Christopher Martin wrote:
I'd like to get a debian-legal opinion on a potential issue with the
kdeartwork package. debian-legal was CCed
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00235.html) on an earlier
discussion of the problem problem by Ben Burton, but didn't receive much
feedback
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[Yeah, I haven't read -legal for a while...]
:)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
Indeed, I agree that it's
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:21:57 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...] You and Licensor expressly waive any rights to a
jury trial in any litigation concerning Licensed Product or this
License.
Is this a bad thing?
I mean: does it do any harm?
This term came up during previous
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as
defined in the file AUTHORS ...
Okay, how about this :
This document is (C) 2004 its contributors as defined in the section
titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the
Josh Triplett wrote:
Two suggestions:
* The GNU GPL and the CC-BY both have several versions. For the GPL,
you should explicitly say GNU General Public License, version 2, or
GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. For the CC-BY, do
something similar, depending on the versions
Daniel Carrera wrote:
I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the
GPL for documentation:
1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something
that is not software?
With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses
the
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the
GPL for documentation:
1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something
that is not software?
With difficulty, IMO.
Don Armstrong wrote:
Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point
out specific problems with the license that preclude its application
to a specific class of work.
Also provide an alternative :-)
No license will be perfect. There will always be drawbacks. The goal
Don Armstrong wrote:
What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and
your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole.
So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to make
this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code.
How
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to
the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to
the work.
I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this
Alright guys,
Here's the lates (and hopefully final) draft of the copyright section:
This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in
the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the
terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:18 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
Actually, A violates the precise letter of the DFSG:
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software.
The MIT X11 License is
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:48:19 + Gervase Markham wrote:
Please don't use the GPL for documentation; it wasn't designed for it.
Ideally, you'd use a DFSG-free documentation-specific licence, but I
seem to remember there isn't one of those. ICBW, of course.
I strongly disagree with this
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:23:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If -legal is specifically discussing a license of a package, the
maintainer is generally informed[1]
it was not in this case, since the first mention i had was that
consensus was reached
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote:
This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in
the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the
terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under
Don Armstrong wrote:
s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or
whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended
copyright statement.]
Okay. I made it at your option. I like simple language.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'm not convinced that was solely so they could force copies of
the GNU Manifesto to be prepended to everything.
I'm pretty sure the need to offer bigger incentives
to existing publishers, authors used to working
in the old-fashioned publishing
Humberto Massa wrote:
Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as
defined in the file AUTHORS ...
That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec.
401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol , the word
copyright, or the abbreviation
34 matches
Mail list logo
