Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording if you want). I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry. Sure, if he got proofs he previously use that exact wording, he may sue you. What matters here is not really the fact it's legal or not to regive his speech (may depends where you live et caetera) but the fact that it's important to regive his speech. At that's possible with the GFDL. As I said before, I think the GFDL provide the freedom that matters for a documentation. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-30 10:44:07 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said before, I think the GFDL provide the freedom that matters for a documentation. I agree with you for the documentation part, but I don't think it gives the freedom that matters for the whole work and that's needed. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct. Can't your mailer delete duplicate? I do not want to be guessing whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I send a mail to the list. On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you can do with a book (apart from reading it, obviously). I disagree. I think editing a book in all its many ways is the most interesting thing, not describing and analysing it. Do you learn more when you edit something, or when you read it? Definitely when I read it. If I read books, it's mainly because it's a way to share knowledge. You can edit a book only if you got some knowledge to share. And if you got some knowledge, you can wrote a book too. If you think it's important to do a collaborative work, you can do a book with someone. What's the problem? You cut my message at the wrong place, where I explain why I say it's pointless. Sorry. I did read the rest of it, but I have to cut it somewhere and that seemed like a good point. I don't agree that thinking about a book is modifying it any more than thinking about a program is modifying it. Maybe it is in a way, but it's not what we normally mean. Sure, normally we only speak of software because with the books it's not really a big deal. If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can regive his speech at the infinite. If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be licensed too... -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 18:57:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't your mailer delete duplicate? Yes. I do not want to be guessing whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I send a mail to the list. You do not have to. Read the code of conduct. You also know that I read this list. [...] I disagree. I think editing a book in all its many ways is the most interesting thing, not describing and analysing it. Do you learn more when you edit something, or when you read it? Definitely when I read it. [...] Oh well, then you are different to me in another way. ;-) I can't find a source for the quotes that run something like I see and I read, I hear and I listen, I do and I understand and you only really learn a topic when you have to teach it. [...] Sure, normally we only speak of software because with the books it's not really a big deal. Nah, normally we only speak of software because that's been practical for longer and it's nearly 20 years since a great man created a foundation promoting it. OK, he doesn't consider it important for all creative works, but I do. My choice. If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can regive his speech at the infinite. If I want to actually reuse his speech in either the sense of a recording or his exact wording, then techically I do need to be granted that permission. I can give my own speech based on the ideas (normally), but I cannot regive his speech. If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be licensed too... Ah, but they are. Go look at the licences on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html and the texts of speeches on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#Speeches for examples. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct. Can't your mailer delete duplicate? I do not want to be guessing whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I send a mail to the list. Mark, it would be nice of you to at least use a Mail-Followup-To header if you feel strongly about this. It gives you a stronger practical position to complement your stronger moral position. On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you can do with a book (apart from reading it, obviously). I disagree. I think editing a book in all its many ways is the most interesting thing, not describing and analysing it. Do you learn more when you edit something, or when you read it? Definitely when I read it. If I read books, it's mainly because it's a way to share knowledge. You can edit a book only if you got some knowledge to share. Nonsense. Observe while I splice the Revelation of St. John into RFC 822. And if you got some knowledge, you can wrote a book too. If you think it's important to do a collaborative work, you can do a book with someone. What's the problem? Those are all possibilities. But the question is not what can I do without this work, but is what I can derive from this work enough to make this work Free? The answer, for the GFDL, is no. You cut my message at the wrong place, where I explain why I say it's pointless. Sorry. I did read the rest of it, but I have to cut it somewhere and that seemed like a good point. I don't agree that thinking about a book is modifying it any more than thinking about a program is modifying it. Maybe it is in a way, but it's not what we normally mean. Sure, normally we only speak of software because with the books it's not really a big deal. If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can regive his speech at the infinite. His speech has not been fixed in a tangible form. If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be licensed too... But see copyright law for references to performances, perhaps with a side-trip to see the Grateful Dead. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can regive his speech at the infinite. If I want to actually reuse his speech in either the sense of a recording or his exact wording, then techically I do need to be granted that permission. I can give my own speech based on the ideas (normally), but I cannot regive his speech. If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be licensed too... Ah, but they are. Go look at the licences on As you said previously, here it's recording, with the real voices of the persons. Hopefully it's licensed: laws forbid you to record someone who is not aware of it, it seems normal to me. That is not universally true: in much of the USA, only one party to a conversation needs to consent to recording. It's a complicated issue which cannot be simply explained here. But as you said, you I can give my own speech based on the ideas, and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording if you want). Not if he's written the words of the speech down, or recorded it: if he did, he owns copyright on that expression of the ideas -- that wording -- as soon as it was in fixed, tangible form. You might find USC 17 interesting reading, or the last 30 months of Debian-Legal traffic. And as you noticed, the important point is to be able to regive the ideas. Which is already possible with any book. There are so many cases where that isn't true it's not even worth listing them all. Yes, in general, copyright law should not inhibit the propagation of ideas. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording if you want). I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry.
