Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
Heya 2009/6/8 oohay moc. : > Yes. I don't know much about copyright. But, I would guess that with a > properly written license, that you would "append" it to a legal copyright > registration along with the work that the license is covering, and send it > to the "patent office" of copyrights. > I'm not an expert as well but I am pretty sure you got this wrong. There is no "patent office" in the loop. Anything a person creates is a work which is copyrightable (e.g. I do a pencil drawing). And since I created it, I'm the copyright holder (eg. I put on the back of it with a pencil "Copyright 2009 Dmitrijs Ledkovs"). Now if I want to distribute/publish so that people can do all sorts with it, I choose a license. In the case of a pencil drawing (ok we can make it a bit more sophisticated - SVG drawing in Inkscape) i would choose for example CC-BY-SA license and I would write on the back of the picture that (small legal paragraph of what license I'm publish this work under and where to get the full text of the license). And that's it, after that I can make photocopies of the drawing and give it to my next door neighbour who can do all sorts of things with my drawing in the spirit of open-source. Copyright says who can decided what can be done with a work. License gives permission to 3rd parties to do what the license tells them. Eg. proprietary EULA impose all sorts of restrictions on you, while GPL lets you do all sorts of things under certain conditions. > And i realize that Debian is just the final collection of software for > execution. All the Debian developers could do is recommend people license > they software under the ACTL when they want to design something for the > Debian operating system. > Most of the software included in Debian can be used on other operating systems (Mostly UNIX-like platforms eg Linux,*BSD etc) so majority of software in Debian is not "for Debian" only. There are some software which did originate inside Debian (upstream is debian) e.g. apt, dpkg. But again that software is not exclusive to Debian. Ubuntu uses that software and so do many other distributions. So I don't see any point in recommending ACTL for software developers. > I don't know how it would work as a trademark license more than a copyright > license. But I would guess it could be both, it would just matter which form > one chose for the license, i.e. copyright+ACTL or trademark+ACTL. > I'm not sure what you mean by "trademark license" nor by "copyright license". Never heard of trademark or copyright being used as an adjective. As far as I know trademark, copyright, patent and license are 4 different things, and each one of them has exact meaning and legal definition. > I don't know which one would actually be the one that would be able to > restrict people's marketing terminology, which is what the license does. > If you don't know what you are proposing how can anyone on this mailing list understand. And "Debian" as in trademark has already been registered. There are some restrictions on it's usage as outlined here [1] [1] http://debian.org/trademark -- With best regards Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima), Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
Yes. I don't know much about copyright. But, I would guess that with a properly written license, that you would "append" it to a legal copyright registration along with the work that the license is covering, and send it to the "patent office" of copyrights. And i realize that Debian is just the final collection of software for execution. All the Debian developers could do is recommend people license they software under the ACTL when they want to design something for the Debian operating system. I don't know how it would work as a trademark license more than a copyright license. But I would guess it could be both, it would just matter which form one chose for the license, i.e. copyright+ACTL or trademark+ACTL. I don't know which one would actually be the one that would be able to restrict people's marketing terminology, which is what the license does. --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: From: Anthony W. Youngman Subject: Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License" To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Cc: "Ben Finney" , "oohay moc." Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 7:13 AM In message <170691.3044...@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, oohay moc. writes > Did you read the license? > > The majority of the software in Debian is licensed under the GPL, that is why > Debian is referred to as licensed under the GNU GPL. > > I would think the license would be applied to the act of final distribution > of Debian, to the source LiveCD, or other ways. So that when one receives the > operating system they have to follow the same terminology in modifications. WRONG. Sorry. But the ONLY person(people) who can apply or change a licence are the people who own the copyrights. For the MOST part, those people are NOT Debian people. Yes, Debian can apply a licence to the LiveCD, because they've done the work of making it. But that licence will NOT apply to the contents of the disk, because Debian don't own the copyright to the stuff they put on the disk. > > The license aims to ensure the that operating systems be called "GNU/Linux" > in any derivative works, like Ubuntu. It also aims to ensure that any > software licensed under it has to be call "Free Software." But, one could use > the license to ensure that the OS be call "Linux" and the software be called > "Open Source." That is my paraphrased summary of the ACT License. > > I didn't write the license so I don't fully understand myself. The only > information I have is the link to the license at inatux.com that I already > posted. > It appears you also don't understand copyright (don't worry, you're in very good company :-) I haven't read the InaTux licence, so I can't comment on whether it's a good or bad licence - it sounds a nice one in some respects, but it also sounds like it should be a trademark licence, not a copyright one. But it's not applicable here because the people you're asking to apply the licence AREN'T the authors, and don't have the legal right to apply the licence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
Re: Servizio aziende : messaggio per debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Is this how we're supposed to introduce ourselves? Isn't English the sole approved language for this list? Am I making too much out of what is essentially spam? Thanks, Patrick --- On Sun, 6/7/09, rispoli.ma...@email.it wrote: > From: rispoli.ma...@email.it > Subject: Servizio aziende : messaggio per debian-legal@lists.debian.org > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 4:26 AM > HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
In message <170691.3044...@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, oohay moc. writes Did you read the license? The majority of the software in Debian is licensed under the GPL, that is why Debian is referred to as licensed under the GNU GPL. I would think the license would be applied to the act of final distribution of Debian, to the source LiveCD, or other ways. So that when one receives the operating system they have to follow the same terminology in modifications. WRONG. Sorry. But the ONLY person(people) who can apply or change a licence are the people who own the copyrights. For the MOST part, those people are NOT Debian people. Yes, Debian can apply a licence to the LiveCD, because they've done the work of making it. But that licence will NOT apply to the contents of the disk, because Debian don't own the copyright to the stuff they put on the disk. The license aims to ensure the that operating systems be called "GNU/Linux" in any derivative works, like Ubuntu. It also aims to ensure that any software licensed under it has to be call "Free Software." But, one could use the license to ensure that the OS be call "Linux" and the software be called "Open Source." That is my paraphrased summary of the ACT License. I didn't write the license so I don't fully understand myself. The only information I have is the link to the license at inatux.com that I already posted. It appears you also don't understand copyright (don't worry, you're in very good company :-) I haven't read the InaTux licence, so I can't comment on whether it's a good or bad licence - it sounds a nice one in some respects, but it also sounds like it should be a trademark licence, not a copyright one. But it's not applicable here because the people you're asking to apply the licence AREN'T the authors, and don't have the legal right to apply the licence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
Did you read the license? The majority of the software in Debian is licensed under the GPL, that is why Debian is referred to as licensed under the GNU GPL. I would think the license would be applied to the act of final distribution of Debian, to the source LiveCD, or other ways. So that when one receives the operating system they have to follow the same terminology in modifications. The license aims to ensure the that operating systems be called "GNU/Linux" in any derivative works, like Ubuntu. It also aims to ensure that any software licensed under it has to be call "Free Software." But, one could use the license to ensure that the OS be call "Linux" and the software be called "Open Source." That is my paraphrased summary of the ACT License. I didn't write the license so I don't fully understand myself. The only information I have is the link to the license at inatux.com that I already posted. --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Ben Finney wrote: From: Ben Finney Subject: Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License" To: debian-de...@lists.debian.org Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 2:34 AM "oohay moc." writes: > So! I was wondering what the community at large, and hopefully the > main Debian developers, think about InaTux's "Author's Choice of > Terminology License"? You can find it here: > http://www.inatux.com/actl/ It's much more practical to look at how *works* are licensed, since often the details of the license are best considered in light of the specific work. What specific existing works is this license currently applied to? What specific works is it proposed for application to? > It has been discontinued, but, I am wondering if the community and the > Debian developers would think about licensing the Debian operating > system under such a license? There is no single license for the Debian operating system. It is distributed under the combined terms of all its thousands of component parts. The copyright license terms for each part should be documented in ‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’. If you want to discuss further in the context of specific works, I suggest you take it to the ‘debian-legal’ list (Cc set). If you *don't* want to discuss in the context of specific works, I'm not understanding what the point is. > I know it conflicts with the GNU GPL, but putting that aside. It only conflicts with the GNU GPL if one attempts to apply its terms simultaneously with the GPL to the same work. > I have sent an email to Richard Stallman asking a similar question, no > response. What is it you are hoping to get from such a conversation, either with Richard Stallman or with the Debian project? I'm having difficulty seeing what the subject is. -- \ “I must say that I find television very educational. The minute | `\ somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.” | _o__) —Groucho Marx | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Servizio aziende : messaggio per debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Offriamo : Servizi di consulenza per : marketing , informatica , traduzioni Assistenza nazionale ed internazionale Per maggiori informazioni e preventivi mailto:sm...@woomail.com"; ;>clicca qui Per reclami inviare mail a mailto:matteoro...@gawab.com"; ;>SMINI Se non vuoi ricevere altri messaggi invia una mail a mailto:smini_un...@gawab.com"; ;>SMINI UNSUBSCRIBE Messaggio per : debian-legal@lists.debian.org We offer : Consulting for : marketing , information , translating services National and international assistance To ask for further information and estimates mailto:sm...@woomail.com"; ;>click here To complain send an email to mailto:matteoro...@gawab.com"; ;>SMINI In case you do not want to receive further messages, send a mail tomailto:smini_un...@gawab.com"; ;>SMINI UNSUBSCRIBE Message for : debian-legal@lists.debian.org -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Parlaci del tuo affetto per il tuo cane partecipando al concorso Cesar! * Vinci bellissimi premi Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid97&d=7-6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: InaTux's "Author's Choice of Terminology License"
"oohay moc." writes: > So! I was wondering what the community at large, and hopefully the > main Debian developers, think about InaTux's "Author's Choice of > Terminology License"? You can find it here: > http://www.inatux.com/actl/ It's much more practical to look at how *works* are licensed, since often the details of the license are best considered in light of the specific work. What specific existing works is this license currently applied to? What specific works is it proposed for application to? > It has been discontinued, but, I am wondering if the community and the > Debian developers would think about licensing the Debian operating > system under such a license? There is no single license for the Debian operating system. It is distributed under the combined terms of all its thousands of component parts. The copyright license terms for each part should be documented in ‘/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGENAME/copyright’. If you want to discuss further in the context of specific works, I suggest you take it to the ‘debian-legal’ list (Cc set). If you *don't* want to discuss in the context of specific works, I'm not understanding what the point is. > I know it conflicts with the GNU GPL, but putting that aside. It only conflicts with the GNU GPL if one attempts to apply its terms simultaneously with the GPL to the same work. > I have sent an email to Richard Stallman asking a similar question, no > response. What is it you are hoping to get from such a conversation, either with Richard Stallman or with the Debian project? I'm having difficulty seeing what the subject is. -- \ “I must say that I find television very educational. The minute | `\ somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.” | _o__)—Groucho Marx | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
