On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 12:42, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, it's fairly established that if you modify the work
before reselling it, exhaustion does not apply.
We're talking about removing a CD from it. I doubt that qualifies as
modification (creating a derivative work?) under any sane
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I think the first sale doctrine is just a USA thing[*], and I don't
know much about it, but I think the idea is that selling a hard-copy
book second-hand does not count as copying or distributing and can
therefore be done without permission from the copyright
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or similar
material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on that CD.*
* The book could not legally be sold without the CD, since the seller would
not be fulfilling the
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 16:10, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's say Alice distributes them as an InstallShield(tm) program, or
as a shar-style archive: an installer program which installs the
documentation and the useful program. Certainly nobody can make such
an installer -- which is a derived
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
works from them.
Like tar czf?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
What license would you recommend for that?
I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free. You would be
compelled to provide source to those who
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
works from them.
Like tar czf?
Not quite what I had
Anthony DeRobertis said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
that CD.*
* The book could not legally be sold without the CD, since the seller
MJ Ray said:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribute
this
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
remove the CD, and resell it. See the first sale doctrine.
But the reseller would be distributing a modified GPLd work
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:47, Joe Moore wrote:
Many technical books come with a CD of examples from the book, or
similar material. A copy of the source could easily be distributed on
that CD.*
* The book could not legally be
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 08:34 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
The publisher couldn't legally sell the book without the CD (or 2(b)
notice); however, anyone else could buy a copy from the publisher,
remove the CD, and resell it. See the first sale doctrine.
But the reseller would be
On Mon 13 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote:
Doug Winter wrote:
One license you may wish to consider is the Creative Commons Attribution
License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
It appears to fulfil all of your requirements, afaict, except perhaps
being suitable for main.
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you feel that the GPL needs clarification for the term 'object code', add
a specific notice stating what forms you consider to be object code (not
source code) in your interpretation.
But make sure this clarification functions as an additional preamble
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally
On 2003-10-13, Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three
years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book
under the GPL, with the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to
provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the
book (without providing anything themselves).
That only works under the stock GPL if the
On 2003-10-13, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to
provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the
book (without providing anything
On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote:
Here is what I would like to do:
1. Give away my book for free.
2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free.
3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free.
4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially.
5. Put the book in Debian
Doug Winter wrote:
On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote:
Here is what I would like to do:
1. Give away my book for free.
2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free.
3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free.
4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially.
5. Put the
Mark Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Winter wrote:
On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote:
Here is what I would like to do:
1. Give away my book for free.
2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free.
3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free.
4. Allow Apress to
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribute
this as a single
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under
Here is what I would like to do:
1. Give away my book for free.
2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free.
3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free.
4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially.
5. Put the book in Debian main.
What license would you recommend for
I am up to speed on the recent discussion of the GFDL, and I have read
the various position statements published by members of the Debian
community. Here is my situation:
1. I have a book, http://diveintopython.org/, which is currently
licensed under the GFDL, with no Invariant Sections and
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 12:24:23PM -0400, Mark Pilgrim wrote:
I am up to speed on the recent discussion of the GFDL, and I have read
the various position statements published by members of the Debian
community. Here is my situation:
1. I have a book, http://diveintopython.org/, which is
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free.
I have equivocated on its freeness before, with respect to clauses 2a)
and 2c).
Also, I see no reason the
On 2003-10-11 17:24:23 +0100 Mark Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1. Give away my book for free.
I don't think any free software licence will prevent that.
2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free.
3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free.
This means that
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free.
I have equivocated on its freeness
31 matches
Mail list logo
