Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:37:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD license provided I include the name or name of the organization. If this ends up being your problem with attribution cover texts then I have no objection. That is essentially the straw that broke the camel's back, in my case. It's not so much that you can shorten the BSD ad, but that the cover text might be, or become, arbitrarily large, and that we have to draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular form. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] A day for firm decisions! Or is it?
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Nick Phillips sed: I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular form. Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or another way to apply the GFDL so that I can achieve my objective? It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit for writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told that they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or for other articles like it. I can simply insert a section at the top that says this, but unless I make it an invariant section, I don't see how I can guarantee that the link is always there. That's quite a different thing from requiring that my name always be listed as an author and copyright holder. I'm actually less concerned about my name being associated with the articles than the website, but the website is not capable of claiming authorship for the articles. Regards, Mike -- Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. -- John J. Chapman, Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote: I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk;. Is that a problem? It might become a problem if your site ever moves. I think this is what Walter meant with cover texts that are misleading. Fortunately, unlike with Invariant Sections, at least *you* have authority to change the cover text. That doesn't help if you can no longer be contacted, though. People do drop off the net sometimes :) Also, while I have your attention, I would also like to say that I would welcome any translations of these articles to other languages. The Open Source Development Lab has already translated the two kernel testing articles to Japanese. In that case, if you do go with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2. Version 1.1 is problematic with translations. Richard Braakman
PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Hello, I found the thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html regarding the licensing information on PHP-Nuke. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a conclusion/consensus on the issue. As an end user of this program, can anyone tell me if this program qualifies as Free Software? I do not wish to spew out a powered by PHP-Nuke footer on every page. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the GPL at all. I wish to display credits on a seperate page on my site, not as a footer on every page. Am I allowed to do this? Is the PHP-Nuke author allowed to force the users to display messages on all their web pages? I will move to a different CMS if this is the case. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote: I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk;. Is that a problem? It might become a problem if your site ever moves. I think this is what Walter meant with cover texts that are misleading. Among other things. Fortunately, unlike with Invariant Sections, at least *you* have authority to change the cover text. That doesn't help if you can no longer be contacted, though. People do drop off the net sometimes :) Or the author doesn't want to change it. One situation that I am all too familiar with has a cover text with something like Visit foo.com Unfortunately, foo.com has long disappeared. Even so, the original author refuses to take out that cover text. Also, while I have your attention, I would also like to say that I would welcome any translations of these articles to other languages. The Open Source Development Lab has already translated the two kernel testing articles to Japanese. In that case, if you do go with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2. Version 1.1 is problematic with translations. I'm starting to think that both versions of the GFDL are problematic, even without cover texts or invariant sections. They don't let me take content and put it in an openoffice or lyx document. Everything has to be modifiable with generic text editors (or paint or drawing programs). Version 1.1 was even worse in this regard, explicitly marking postscript as an opaque format. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the advertizing clause free. Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original work more than copyright law?
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Hi Ron, On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 12:26:34PM -0400, Ron wrote: I found the thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00164.html regarding the licensing information on PHP-Nuke. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a conclusion/consensus on the issue. As an end user of this program, can anyone tell me if this program qualifies as Free Software? I do not wish to spew out a powered by PHP-Nuke footer on every page. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the GPL at all. I wish to display credits on a seperate page on my site, not as a footer on every page. Am I allowed to do this? Is the PHP-Nuke author allowed to force the users to display messages on all their web pages? I will move to a different CMS if this is the case. Thank you for your time and assistance. The copyright holder of a work is free to license the work under the terms of his choosing. Although the PHP-Nuke author has stated the work is under the GPL, he imposes the additional restriction (one which we believe is NOT part of the GPL normally) to display credits on every web page output by the software. As such, the consensus on debian-legal is that PHP-Nuke does not comply with the DFSG and should not be included in Debian's main archive. To the question of whether the PHP-Nuke author is able to impose this restriction, that question can be rephrased as: is he the exclusive copyright holder? If he is, he can license it however he wants. If he isn't, he may be infringing the copyright of the other copyright holders by releasing the work under this modified GPL. This seems to be an open question at present. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpQsLRMpfj6q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Thank you Steve. That helps greatly. I don't believe he is the sole copyright holder, but I can not state that with 100% certainty. I will look into using a different system. Best regards, Ron
