On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay <j...@fsf.org> wrote: > On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> Yoni, >> >> I and others made very clear and practical points about why your >> decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are >> incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. > > This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail > added in to address your previous reply. > > I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says "free > software" to say "open source" and adjust sentences accordingly. I then > state on the cover of my book: "This is the official and definitive > translation of Richard Stallman's work".
Hmmmm. > While I might be in compliance > with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a > misrepresentation of Stallman and his work. I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the summary of 4.0: "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." https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine): "No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i)." https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode Cheers, --R -- Robinson Tryon QA Engineer - The Document Foundation LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald qu...@libreoffice.org 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode
