Jerome said:
It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-)
Yeah. :-) But I've been contenting myself with commenting the code and
documenting it within the files themselves, in --help, etc. :-)
Of which there's plenty that needs to be done.
--Nathanael
Arnoud Galatus Engelfriet said:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
It's bogus because it impinges on free speech and gives heirs of the
dead rights
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
helps me protect my moral rights.
No. Under US law, you can stop me from harming your reputation under
libel, slander,
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suppose maybe Theo de Raadt could use his moral rights
against people adding buffer overflows to his code, but
otherwise it might be difficult to come up with this type
of claim. You have to argue something that shows how your
reputation is
Branden mentioned:
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to
*prove* that the alleged 'libel' is false.
So, when an American sues for libel in the U.K., it's a
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not sure it's entirely the right time, but the basic
principle behind European copyright law is that you have
by definition certain rights. Not just to promote progress,
but simply because you made the work. It's your intellectual
property.
Josselin Mouette said:
When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often
a free fork which gets maintained. If that happens to some non-free
documentation as well, that's fine, but I don't think you will find
many volunteers to do that.
I'd do it for GCC. Unfortunately,
Jerome Marant:
Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic.
Speak for yourself. I love writing documentation. I'd be doing massive
amounts of work on the GCC manual right now if it weren't for its
obnoxious licence. And anyone can quote me on that. :-)
--Nathanael
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[This is starting to shift away from the GFDL so I modified the
subject. Georg, I can suppress you from the Cc: if you wish so.]
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:25:43PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Naturally, I'm
Georg said:
Software and documentation are quite different according to the way
they are treated by the legal system. Moral rights (on which this is
based) are seen much more strongly for documentation.
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
This is
; it's rude to remove it, rather than making non-removability a legal
condition and opening the can of worms.
--Nathanael Nerode
that it's GPL-incompatible. (*Both ways* in fact. GPLed
code cannot be put into a GFDLed document, except through the 'fair use'
provisions of copyright law, which get narrower every day. Which would be a
serious flaw even if the GFDL was a free licence, which it's not.)
--Nathanael Nerode
will get the point.
--Nathanael Nerode
that the
text of the page constituted the source code?
If so, we have a bigger problem; the GPL is legally unsafe!
If not, then why do you need these clauses in the GFDL which aren't the GPL
or BSD licences?
I'm really trying to see your point here.
--Nathanael Nerode
the normal international treaties.)
I seem to have to repeat this every time someone talks about copyrights. :-)
--Nathanael Nerode
And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is
enough
for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is not copyrighted. The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by
So how about that non-EU section?
Having looked into copyright law, I find that there are two primary
theories of copyright:
1. It is a 'natural right', a property right lasting forever, and
national laws merely shorten copyright and remove it from certain
things. This is the view taken
Thomas Bushnell writes:
Giacomo Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the function is very simple, enought simple to be free?
Anyone kwnow a similar function but GPLized or PD (to replace this
function)?
Being simple really doesn't matter. However, glibc contains the
function, so I'd just
Actually, I had a funny variant reading of the htp Distribution statement:
It's public domain. No charge can be incurred for the redistribution
of... and All distributions of htp must... refer not to copyright,
but to the use of the name htp, a common law trademark. :-)
Clearly a very
Branden said:
So, might not the DFCL say something like:
BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDER(S). ANY
701 - 720 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
