On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Now, the French contributor can sneak something past debian-legal by
writing a license text that appears to grant permissions that the
contributor has no power to grant. Is that what you want?
Are you sure the location of the contributor is
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
In my personal opinion, the moral rights idea is very disturbing. I
know it has its defenders, ...
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
that. The DFSG were originally designed for software; if
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
In my personal opinion, the moral rights idea is very disturbing.
I know it has its defenders, ...
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental
than that. The DFSG
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
that. The DFSG were originally designed for software; if they are to be
extended to apply to works that are mainly about expression rather than
function, you risk bumping up against the law.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 02:17:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
|]Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
|]Creative Commons or any related trademark or logo of Creative
|]Commons without
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not clear what the extent practicable means here, but it sounds
like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from the work if
the author asks you to. That sounds like another non-free point.
Careful. Is Debian attempting to push a
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I don't know, I think that may be exactly what they wanted. After
all, the license is all about maintaining attribution -- i.e.,
ensuring that folks who see derivative works know about all the
people who contributed to it.
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone cared to check the source code of the page?
This sections begins with a comment:
!-- BREAKOUT FOR CC NOTICE. NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE --
So please just ask CC if they could make this fact more obvious (i.e.
not just using different
On 2004-03-31 00:11:19 +0100 Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Careful. Is Debian attempting to push a concept of free that
conflicts
with the European concept of the author's moral right?
I think you should look at/ask after the work FSF Europe (.org) did on
the Fiduciary Licence
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not clear what the extent practicable means here, but it
sounds like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from
the work if the author asks you to. That sounds like another
non-free point.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
| Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters
| on
| the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It
Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book,
|trademark usage rights which are not otherwise restricted by law:
|
|
|]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
|]Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
|]Creative Commons or any related trademark or logo of Creative
|]Commons without
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:17:21 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'm sure CC didn't really intend this; I don't know who to write to to
tell them Fix your license!, though.
I'd think that the right contact is shown here:
http://creativecommons.org/discuss#license
--
| GnuPG Key ID
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
| Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on
| the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It
Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book, and the original
author
clause is non-free on its face, because it restricts
trademark usage rights which are not otherwise restricted by law:
]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
]Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
]Creative Commons or any related
Hello everybody,
I would like to know your opinion about the Creative Commons
Attribution License 1.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
I searched the -legal archives, but I was not able to find a clear
statement about this license...
Is there any consensus about its DFSG
to the public that the Work is
]licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark Creative
]Commons or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the
]prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in
]compliance with Creative Commons' then-current
17 matches
Mail list logo
