Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > 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", be
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 Â, the word
"copyright", or the abbreviation "copr."; the year of the first
publication of the work; and the name of th
Scripsit Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 :-)
Thanks for confirming that cluestick waving can have
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 t
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 sign
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
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 th
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
Humberto Massa wrote:
> 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.
But I want to give my project the ability to grab those if we like t
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 la
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
> >
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 tha
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 Â, the word
"copyright", or the abbreviation
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
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
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,
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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 sor
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 un
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.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:42:49 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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.
This is really really great news! :)
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried
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://w
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 tha
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
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
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 n
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
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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.
Wonderful!
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 ve
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
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
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
G
Daniel Carrera wrote:
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 doc
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:
32 matches
Mail list logo
