On 9/13/06, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to use Wikipedia articles for some of the basic background,
thus it will be covered by the FDL, and not one of the easier to
understand Creative Commons licenses.
The GNU FDL is not part of the Creative Commons licenses, many
2006/9/13, Brandon Sharitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front and
back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?
If you print the documents in quantity, you'll need to print them in the cover.
And if you redistribute the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a (lawfully made) copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be lawfully made if it
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a (lawfully made) copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy
Okay, all these GNU licenses are a bit confusing as far as I'm
concerned. I think I've got a decent under standing of the GPL and LGPL
since I've used them, but my latest project will use the FDL. The
project is a book on ancient history, of which the specifics of
aren't important for this
I plan to use Wikipedia articles for some of the basic background,
thus it will be covered by the FDL, and not one of the easier to
understand Creative Commons licenses.
The GNU FDL is not part of the Creative Commons licenses, many of the
CC licenses are infact problematic since they
One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front
and back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?
The cover on the front, and the cover on the back. Like art work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
sense of the word.
How come that the GNU GPL, which prohibits charging a fee *for copying*
(see no charge), is considered free by GNUtians?
Oh,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In mine, the GPL reads:
(clause 1)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.
That's not about
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The no charge clause is for _licensing_,
And licensing to do what?
To distribute further copies of your copy, not to receive a copy in the
first place. You don't need a licence to receive and use a copy.
A can charge
Go to doctor, GNUtian Tobin.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[junk]
Go away, we're talking about you, not to you.
-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
