On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, David Neeley wrote:
Comments within
On 6/12/06, Steve Litt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why can't the original author label his or her contribution as "Licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2", or similar. Layout files
are code, so the GPL fits them well. Speaking for myself, I'd be hesitant
to contribute anything without GPL'ling it, because some licenses leave
open the door for a big bad company to change my layout just a little bit
and take it proprietary, and who knows, some day sue me for using code
derived from their code, and then I have to prove that mine preceded
theirs.
<snip>
There is a considerable debate, as you probably know, about whether the
GPL is a good idea for areas such as these in which a layout may be used
to create commercial documents. That is why I would suggest something
like the BSD approach that permits commercial use.
<snip>
Finally, it is unlikely that layout files themselves would be an
issue--since the objective is the documents created with that layout
file and not the layout file itself. I really think that this discussion
is largely the result of worry over what is very unlikely to happen to
begin with--but a reasonable application of a license is certainly not a
bad idea at all.
This is issue is apparently a bit complicated. However, I think it was a
good idea to emphasize that wiki authors are free to license their work
as they see fit, especially any files they upload. So, for the page
http://wiki.lyx.org/Site/Copyrights
What do you about adding a paragraph such as this:
Please note that contributors are free to license uploaded
material as they see fit. So if you wish to upload layout examples
under some specific license, please do so.
I'd be grateful for comments about this, and also about the text in
general on http://wiki.lyx.org/Site/Copyrights - I'm not sure it's that
thought through really (or legal for that matter...)
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
