Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol , the word copyright, or the abbreviation copr.; the year of the first publication of the work; and the name of the owner of the copyright owner. How's this: This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined in the section titled Authors. I suppose its contributers as defined... would count as an readily-recognizable abbreviation to the copyright holders. Though I'd suggest as listed, because as defined doesn't make sense. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Henning Makholm wrote: The word linking (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment: | If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more | useful to permit linking proprietary applications | with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU | Library General Public License instead of this License. Fair enough. Having read more widely on the subject, the problems of using the GPL specifically aren't nearly as great as I first thought. Thanks for taking the time to apply the cluestick :-) Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Scripsit Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's nothing magical about non-programmatic langagues that makes copyright law not apply. Indeed not. But there is something about the concepts of linking and other software-oriented words the licence uses which make the judgement significantly harder in this case than others. The word linking (or any of its forms) appears exactly once in the GPL, and that is in a non-legal, non-technical aside comment: | If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more | useful to permit linking proprietary applications | with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU | Library General Public License instead of this License. Indeed - but I was saying are you saying the GPL and LGPL are equivalent for this particular sort of work? The LGPL explicitly applies only to | a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be | conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of | those functions and data) to form executables. Thus it is not as broadly applicable as the GPL (which applies to all kinds of copyright-protected works), and it is probably not meaningful to apply it to your example without some statement from the author as to how he intends linked to be interpreted. -- Henning Makholm Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem, som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det, jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags.
Documenting License Interpretations (was: Re: GPL for documentation ?)
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this sort of thing was a pain because it meant everyone's licence was different. Documenting things which can otherwise only be guessed (What does the author thought that 'linking' means for a wordlist?) can only be positive. IIRC licenses per-se cannot be free because intent of author often is relevant too - especially in gray areas. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Re: Documenting License Interpretations (was: Re: GPL for documentation ?)
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:05:32AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this sort of thing was a pain because it meant everyone's licence was different. Documenting things which can otherwise only be guessed (What does the author thought that 'linking' means for a wordlist?) can only be positive. IIRC licenses per-se cannot be free because intent of author often is relevant too - especially in gray areas. The very purpose of a license text is to express the intent and wishes of the author. If the intent of the author and the text of the license disagree, the author is using a wrong or poorly-written license. In the vast majority of cases, freeness can readily be determined for a license in a vacuum[1]--it's the rare minority, in my experience, where a license on its own appears free but a particular application of it is rendered non-free. If an author has to further explain a particular aspect of the license, then there's usually something wrong; and Gervase is right: it's very likely to result in each licensor clarifying these ambiguous points in different ways. In the case of the GPL, all such clarifications usually become mutually incompatible (unless they're implemented as additional permissions, and those too must be carefully constructed), which is one of the worst possible outcomes. That said, there doesn't seem to be an ideal copyleft-ish license for documentation available; that, combined with the notion of material crossing back and forth between a program and its documentation (which requires that they have compatible licenses), only leaves us with the GPL at the moment for people who want a copyleft. I very strongly recommend against making any binding addendums or clarifications or interpretations to any application of the GPL, however, due to the fact that you're really creating sometihng that's similar to, but different than and *incompatible with* the GPL. [1] That said, it's still usually a good idea to approach a license as it applies to a particular work; it gives the discussion a grounding in a real-life case, it gives us some upstream authors to talk to if the license seems ambiguous, and so on. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: Alright guys, Here's the lates (and hopefully final) draft of the copyright section: This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of any part receiving it. How does that look? Cheers, I - personally - loathe the or later stuff. When you license some work under a some version or later, you are trusting eg in your case both the FSF/GNU and the CC not to botch the next versions. I wouldn't. IMHO, it's very ample. Stay with the versions which implications you fully comprehend (GPL v2.0, CC-BY v2.0) would be my advise. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: Question: I thought that the or later was also standard for GPL software. Isn't it? I believe so, it's customary (by no means mandatory tough). With the honorable exception of the Linux kernel, among others, that are GPLv2 only. Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL for documentation ?
Hello, Jeremy just had an interesting idea. About using a dual license. In my case, I would pick GPL/CC-BY. I just emailed a couple of people with the idea, to test the waters. I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? 2) How do I assign the GPL/CC-BY to a document? I guess the first page of the file would say something like this document is released under the GPL and the CC-BY license Could someone help me produce a boilerplate for the license? I want to make it as short and simple as possible. 3) How do I attribute authors? In our project, each document is reviewed and edited several times by several different people. It's very difficult to say who changed what. This is one of our motivations for wanting to move away from the PDL in the first place. The GPL doesn't seem to have any such requirement. So, how would I name the authors? Can I get away with an appendix with a list of contributors? 4) Is there anything I should be aware of that I forgot to ask? :-) Thank you for your help. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Humberto Massa wrote: Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as defined in the file AUTHORS ... Okay, how about this : This document is (C) 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (http://...), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://...), at the option of any part receiving it. So, the document would have a section (e.g. an appendix) with a list of contributors. This should meet the requirements of both the GPL and CC-BY, while making it easy for other people to meet the requirements also. They'd only have one file to distribute to maintain attribution. What do you guys think? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) The GPL language talks about software. Not really. Software is mentioned in the Preamble, in some clarifying remarks in Section 7, and in Section 10 (referring to software copyrighted by the FSF). Section 3 talks about media customarily used for software interchange. I see no other mention of software. The GPL uses the term Program quite extensively, and Section 0 defines it as a program or work. It is therefore not restricted not any specific kind of work. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: Humberto Massa wrote: Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as defined in the file AUTHORS ... Okay, how about this : This document is (C) 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (http://...), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://...), at the option of any part receiving it. So, the document would have a section (e.g. an appendix) with a list of contributors. This should meet the requirements of both the GPL and CC-BY, while making it easy for other people to meet the requirements also. They'd only have one file to distribute to maintain attribution. Two suggestions: * The GNU GPL and the CC-BY both have several versions. For the GPL, you should explicitly say GNU General Public License, version 2, or GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. For the CC-BY, do something similar, depending on the versions you want. * (C) has no legal significance; only Copyright and a C in a circle do. Use the full word Copyright. Also, for the URLs, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html works for the GPL, though in the ideal case you should include a copy of the GPL with the work. Other than that, it looks fine. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Josh Triplett wrote: Two suggestions: * The GNU GPL and the CC-BY both have several versions. For the GPL, you should explicitly say GNU General Public License, version 2, or GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. For the CC-BY, do something similar, depending on the versions you want. Alright. I think that version 2 or later is the standard, right? Is that what you would recommend? For CC-BY I could do the same (version 2.0 or later). I guess that this way, if the CC ever gets around to correcting the CC-BY license, I can move to the new one without hassle. Your thoughts ? Thanks for the help. As a sidenote, I got a response back from our chief editor and she likes the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I think that the others will too. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses the word software a few times, it is assumed throughout. For example, what do you do with a dictionary under the GPL and a word processor? Is it just data used by the program, or is it a part of it? It's really hard to figure it out, and creates uncertainty. (Mozilla/Open Office have this problem at the moment with GPLed dictionaries.) Please don't use the GPL for documentation; it wasn't designed for it. Ideally, you'd use a DFSG-free documentation-specific licence, but I seem to remember there isn't one of those. ICBW, of course. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote: Daniel Carrera wrote: I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? With difficulty, IMO. Although, as someone points out, the GPL only uses the word software a few times, it is assumed throughout. For example, what do you do with a dictionary under the GPL and a word processor? Is it just data used by the program, or is it a part of it? It's really hard to figure it out, and creates uncertainty. What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole. If you're talking about source code, the prefered form for modification applies equally well to documentation as it does to programmatic works. If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. Please don't use the GPL for documentation; it wasn't designed for it. Ideally, you'd use a DFSG-free documentation-specific licence, but I seem to remember there isn't one of those. ICBW, of course. It may not have been designed specifically for it, but there are few specific problems that have been pointed out with using the GPL for documentation that cannot be trivially overcome. Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point out specific problems with the license that preclude its application to a specific class of work. Otherwise we devolve into discussing generalities and the ever present FUD. Don Armstrong -- THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS -- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote: Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point out specific problems with the license that preclude its application to a specific class of work. Also provide an alternative :-) No license will be perfect. There will always be drawbacks. The goal is not to pick something infallible, but to pick something suitable. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote: What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole. So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to make this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code. How does the distinction between the GPL and the LGPL apply to a dictionary? Or are the two licences the same when you are talking about something that can't in any meaningful sense be linked? If you're talking about source code, the prefered form for modification applies equally well to documentation as it does to programmatic works. Sure. I didn't say the entire thing was inapplicable. If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this sort of thing was a pain because it meant everyone's licence was different. Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point out specific problems with the license that preclude its application to a specific class of work. Well, exhibit A in the GPL's not good for documentation discussion is the very existence of the GFDL, its freeness or otherwise notwithstanding. This means that at least one and possibly more smart free software legal minds took a long hard look at the GPL/documentation issue and decided to put a bunch of work into a more appropriate licence. I'm not convinced that was solely so they could force copies of the GNU Manifesto to be prepended to everything. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Documenting License Interpretations (was: Re: GPL for documentation ?)
On Thursday 10 March 2005 23:37, Gervase Markham wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to the work. I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this sort of thing was a pain because it meant everyone's licence was different. Documenting things which can otherwise only be guessed (What has the author thought that 'linking' means for a wordlist?) can only be positive. IIRC licenses per-se cannot be judged (DFSG-)free anyways because intent of author often is relevant too - especially in gray areas. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Alright guys, Here's the lates (and hopefully final) draft of the copyright section: This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of any part receiving it. How does that look? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:48:19 + Gervase Markham wrote: Please don't use the GPL for documentation; it wasn't designed for it. Ideally, you'd use a DFSG-free documentation-specific licence, but I seem to remember there isn't one of those. ICBW, of course. I strongly disagree with this recommendation. Please *use* the GPL for documentation. Or any other DFSG-free license (as long as it's well established and GPL-compatible[1]). Please do *not* use documentation-specific (and thus possibly GPL-incompatible) licenses: documentation can be mixed with programs and other kind of works. [1] This more or less means Expat, X11, 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD... -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdDNyqd312F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL for documentation ?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Daniel Carrera wrote: This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of any part receiving it. s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended copyright statement.] Don Armstrong -- [Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it Operation Just Cause.] I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be Operation Just 'Cause? -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669cid=5664907 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote: s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended copyright statement.] Okay. I made it at your option. I like simple language. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm not convinced that was solely so they could force copies of the GNU Manifesto to be prepended to everything. I'm pretty sure the need to offer bigger incentives to existing publishers, authors used to working in the old-fashioned publishing models and other sponsors to help create GNU manuals played a part in it. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Humberto Massa wrote: Yes, you could start with this document is (C) its contributors as defined in the file AUTHORS ... That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol , the word copyright, or the abbreviation copr.; the year of the first publication of the work; and the name of the owner of the copyright owner. So you should probably do do something like: Copyright 2005 Principle author(s). ... license terms ... For full copyright information, please see the file COPYRIGHT. And in the file COPYRIGHT, you can list all the copyright holders, the full text of the licenses, etc.
