Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
Anthony W. Youngman dijo [Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:57:32AM +0100]: That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a derived work, because you've changed it. (...) The ONLY way you can actually *change* the licence is if you add code that is, let's say, 1.2 only. At which point the combined work becomes 1.2. Who says it must be code? Specially when talking about GFDL, package metainfo is a kind of change. If you change the licensing (to a valid license, of course), you are creating a derived work. Of course, if you package $foo by creating $foo/debian/*, you are no longer distributing the original files created by the author - you are creating a derived work. And that's one of the reasons why in debian/copyright we must acknowledge the licensing for the work we do in debian/* Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. Whether or not that's a good idea is a different matter. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
In message 20090329090239.gw7...@anguilla.noreply.org, Peter Palfrader wea...@debian.org writes I disagree. I have received X under several licenses, and it is my choice which of those to pick. When I re-distribute it I can redistribute it under one or any number of those licenses, but I don't have to redistribute it (or any work based on it) under all of those licenses. That wouldn't change the original license people get from the original place, but from me they can get it only under say 1.2. In which case, you are NOT distributing the ORIGINAL work, but a derived work, because you've changed it. If it's an unchanged work, legally, you are using the 1.2 licence to distribute it, but you cannot change the licence the copyright holder originally granted. Note the wording in the GPL - the recipient gets a licence from the ORIGINAL licensor - if they gave 1.1 or later then that's what the recipient gets, regardless of whether you distributed under 1.1 or 1.2. The ONLY way you can actually *change* the licence is if you add code that is, let's say, 1.2 only. At which point the combined work becomes 1.2. A choice of licence only gives YOU the right to choose which licence applies to YOU. It does not give you the right to change the licences the recipient can choose from (unless, as I said, you create a derived work, in which case the recipient has to choose a licence that is compatible with your licence for the stuff for which you hold the copyright, and the other stuff you don't hold the copyright for). 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: GFDL 1.1 or later
2009/3/28 Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org: I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? The license's version is 1.1, so I think that you have to point to that referred version. I think that, as the copyight holder says version X or (at your choice) any later version, you are allowed (by exercising that choice) to change that X (in this case X == 1.1) for any X' value equal or higher than the original X (in this case, X' = 1.1). I think I read something similar to that it somewhere in the FSF site. However, I just did a quick search I couldn't find the specific page. If you do find it, please send the link to the list. Cheers, L -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
GFDL 1.1 or later
Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GFDL 1.1 or later
In message 20090328194920.gk5...@const.famille.thibault.fr, Samuel Thibault samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org writes Hello, I have a package whose documentation is licensed under GFDL 1.1 or any later without invariant sections, Front/Back-Cover texts, Acknowledgement or Dedication sections. How should I formulate the copyright file? Say that Debian ships it under the GFDL 1.2 and point to the common-license, or just stay with 1.1? Stay with 1.1 or later. Basically, unless YOU have the right to RElicence, you can't change the licence. And I doubt you have that right. The licensor has given you the right to use it under a later licence. But unless they gave you the right to CHANGE the licence (which I doubt) then you don't have the right to take 1.1 away. 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
