Sat, 4 Sep 2021 04:14:12 -0400 - Steve Litt <[email protected]>:
> [email protected] said on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:18:43 -0500 > > >Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan > >trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and > >written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt. > > > >My .02 . . . > > > >Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through > >Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is > >even considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne. Just to clarify and avoid misunderstandings: - I know there are trademarks etc. - My proposal for one "DNG Verbatim Libre License" was, precisely, just a proposal... - I made the proposal saying "I suggest sometihing like"... So, the proposed text was a "sample", where terms like "DNG" or "Devuan" and the content text were, in fact, to be discuss (in case you were interested in doing so) [...] > >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the > >financial resources to challenge those who might violate it. Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT, Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources to pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these licenses) they do it for them. In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that you can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to indicate the author and you don't have to change the content... > Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation > project is better off allowing distribution of modifications. So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be: - GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution which states: ~~~ Copyright YEAR AUTHOR Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this entire document without royalty provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved. ~~~ - Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/> which states: ~~~ You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. ~~~ or any other similar verbatim license. > >Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine > >preservation. > > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Indeed :-) But even a paper papyrus would not be bad. It also resists 5000+ years ... A CDROM that resists 50 years is already a miracle; And even if it were, in 50 years it will be difficult to even find a reader ... Someone today can read a 5 1/4 floppy? Regards al3xu5 -- Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design restrictions! ____________________________________________________________________________ Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B
pgpZTmdKomqEi.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
