On 16 Mar 2007, at 16:13, Jesse Ross wrote:
I think the differentiation between source and compiled is
necessary, so that the copyright notice gets added to printed work
(otherwise the copyright doesn't travel with, say a PDF or a book).
So maybe something like this:
========================================
<snip>
1. Redistributions of source code (<insert whatever source form is
used>) must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer as the first lines of this
file unmodified.
Yup, that makes sense.
2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs,
converted to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
This needs modifying slightly. We don't want people distributing
books / PDFs of our documentation and putting the copyright notice in
the documentation for the documentation (what would that even be?
'To read this book, place in front of eyes and use brain to translate
symbols into concepts?') We want them to place it in wherever is
appropriate for copyright notices, typically the inside cover. How
about this:
2. Redistributions in compiled form (transformed to other DTDs,
converted to PDF, PostScript, RTF and other formats) must reproduce
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in the appropriate place for copyright notices, typically
the inside cover. If the medium does not have a standard place for
copyright notices, then the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer must be placed on the first
line.
3. Neither the name of the Etoile Project nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this documentation without specific prior written permission.
<snip>
========================================
I think the 3rd clause may not be a good idea (which is why the
FreeBSD folks pulled it out), as people may want to publish the
documentation in dead-tree form, and they would have to ask us if
they can put 'Etoile Project' on the 'Etoile Project
Documentation'... I'm not sure what else they would call it and it
could be a logistic hassle if they do need to get in contact with
us. Thoughts?
I think the reason they removed this is that it doesn't necessarily
make sense. How can you make a product derived from (in the legal
sense of a derived work) documentation? A book would count, for
example. Do we want the Étoilé Project name used to endorse the
selling of books about Étoilé? Actually, we probably don't, unless
we can read them and agree that they meet a certain standard of
quality. We do, however, want it to be able to use the name Étoilé.
For example, someone writing a book 'Étoilé Uncovered!' would be
fine, but having them say 'The official reference to the Étoilé
environment' would not (unless it's really good, and we decide to be
publicity whores :) As it stands, I think clause three would prevent
both uses. So, we want to keep it but weaken is slightly. How about
this:
3. Neither the name of the Etoile Project nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this documentation without specific prior written permission. An
exemption is granted for use of the Etoile Project name in the title
of any work relating to the project.
I am still slightly unhappy with this, because we are mixing
trademark and copyright law in the same clause, which would make it
very messy if we ever needed or wanted to enforce it. On the other
hand, we probably never will...
David
P.S. I am legally obliged to remind you that I am not, and never have
been, an IP (or any other kind of) lawyer, and this is not legal
advice. It's not illegal advice either though (I hope).
_______________________________________________
Etoile-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
