On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Another example from the Free software world is TeX, which can be relevant > here: It is released under a Free license, and modification is allowed, but > modified versions cannot be called "TeX". See > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#License If I'm not wrong, cc-whatever specifies that the author of the primitive work has no responsability on derivative works, and I think that a clause that limits the name of derivative works is not in contrast with the license. We are used to Wikimedia projects, where the last saved version is "the" version, but actually any version is a derivative work of the previous versions. > > > Making it ND is a problem not just because of free licensing purism. Just > for the sake of the example, let's say that this normative grammar is a > book in four parts: pronunciation, spelling, morphology and syntax. I am > teaching a course on Serbian morphology and I want to use the corresponding > chapter, and no others. Printing all chapters would waste paper, but > printing only one chapter would violate the ND clause. Of course, teachers > all around the world do it all the time anyway, but we don't want to > violate anything, right? :) Teachers most often can invoke fair use; however, for our sake, we would like to be able to go beyond that. Even without using ND clauses, we could think of some "superprotection" way of ensuring that the reference work is not modified (and whatever derivative work is something else). Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
