Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way. The same free software licence as the rest of the project's software. More comments on FDL http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#dfsg -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programs made by teenagers
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote: I might package a game created by a teenager, so I wanted to make sure that the fact thas she's minor wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if she has right to license what she does, or it must be her parents, or something like that. Any thoughts on this? Is there any difference in her being over or under 16? It really depends on the jurisdiction; it'd be best if she had her parents permission to license her work the way she has just to avoid any complications, but it may not be necessary everywhere. I personally don't think it's necessary to see an e-mail from here parents or anything formal like that; just an acknowledgement from her that she has told them what she's doing, and that they don't object is probably sufficient. What we're protecting ourselves from here is cases where the parents have decided that the minor is not of the majority and did not understand what she was doing and decides to sue Debian or our users because the license was invalid. Since we're just as vulernable to cases where the copyright holder is untruthfully specified, I don't think it's necessary to go overboard with proof. Don Armstrong -- The beauty of the DRUNKENNESS subprogram was that you could move your intoxication level up and down at will, instead of being caught on a relentless down escalator to bargain basement philosophy and the parking garage. -- Rudy von Bitter _Software_ p124 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however. If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open? If you use the word proprietary correctly, then linux is proprietary. proprietary means has an owner (which ALL copyrighted works do). The opposite of proprietary is Public Domain. Thanks as always for all your feedback. You're welcome :-) Shriramana Sharma. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Ben Finney wrote: Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have heard that in copyright declarations like: Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. --- it is incorrect to use (C) in place of the symbol © which is the strict copyright symbol. Is this so? If yes, why? It's possibly not a valid copyright indicator. The © symbol is unambiguous under the law, and thus preferred. unambiguous under the law, but technical ambiguous. What character encoding should be used? IMHO (c) is the character representation of the copyright symbol, and when you print it, you should substitute with the correct symbol, as the ff, ffl, fl, .. ligatures. Anyway when the symbol is not printed, it should be written in some other form (a sequence of bits, which are not law defined), so IMHO any obvious representation should be valid. And what if you have an old-fashioned typewriter. It's all very well saying you must use the copyright symbol, but what if your golfball/daisywheel/lineprinter doesn't have it? Or like me, it isn't on my keyboard, and I haven't learnt how to make my keyboard produce a copyright symbol? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a font with an unfree character be free?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Mon, 14 May 2007, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/14/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering the fact that the actual symbol is a white wheelchair on a blue background, it's not clear that a black font would be a ^ derivative work of such a design. ^^^ I didn't think simply changing colors removed the original copyright. [emphasis added] If that is in fact what was done, it obviously doesn't. However, what is actually copyrighted is a specific representation of a person in a wheelchair, and the creation of derivative works thereof. It's not clear that all minimalistic representations of a person in a wheelchair would be derivative works of the ISA. And, considering the very restricted meaning of copying under copyright law, if I have a printout of the symbol and design a copy of it using a computer, then as far as copyright law goes it is not a derivative. It may be a breach of trademark... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License-Question (expanded GPL)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cord Beermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi. I want to add a package to Debian with the following License-Statement: The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License. It's the GNU *General* Public Licence. There's no such thing (afaik) as the GNU Public Licence. You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog. This requirement is incompatible with the GPL. In other words, this paragraph contradicts the previous one. NOT a good idea in a licence grant. Credit must be give to the original author and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and link to the project on SourceForge.net I think this has the same problems as the previous paragraph. Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG? No distributor with any sense would touch this with a bargepole. Your grant of licence is self-contradictory, and as such it would not be wise to rely on it... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney wrote: [the (C) sequence is] possibly not a valid copyright indicator. The © symbol is unambiguous under the law, and thus preferred. unambiguous under the law, but technical ambiguous. What character encoding should be used? The same encoding as the rest of the file. And if that encoding is 7-bit ascii ??? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (C) vs ©
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney writes: Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What character encoding should be used? The same encoding as the rest of the file. And if that encoding is 7-bit ascii ??? Copyright law allows for two copyright symbols: the © one, and the sequence of characters 'copr.'. The latter is rarely used, probably because it looks so awkward; but those are the only two recognised under the law. The '(C)' representation is *not* recognised under copyright law. Presumably, your 7-bit ASCII keyboard can produce 'copr.'. Then, when you've done that, join us in the third millennium where we have international character sets. (And, incidentally, where we have the Berne convention, making most of this dicussion moot by creating copyright monopolies even in the absence of explicit copyright notices.) -- \ I have a map of the United States; it's actual size. It says | `\ '1 mile equals 1 mile'... Last summer, I folded it. -- Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
