MJ Ray wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
It looks like the only problem is having to provide sources. If my team
goes for a dual GPL/CC-BY system, we can wiggle out of that easily. The
printed manual can be plain CC-BY, but you are always free to download the
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using
> the GPL for documentation.
They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The
GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite
flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> How about dual licensing? License it under both the GPL (or whatever
> license the software you're documenting uses -- see below) and the
> CC-by.
That's a thought... it's a good thought.
I'll discuss that with the others.
> But if you dual license now, when the time c
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous
>> pair of licenses?
>
> Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Getting
> anything changed is difficult and takes time. Before, the only l
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alright, then please help me understand. What exactly are the references
> that you feel the license should permit, but the current wording doesn't?
I think it'd be reasonable for an author to require that his name be
purged from the list of authors/c
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> But you can approve a mangled variation on CC-BY, if you pretend that
> it's really the same thing? So just 'clarify' it into the MIT
> license...
Well... I'm asking about whether one can use a letter to clarify
ambiguities. For example, if it's not clear exactly what is
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:07:47AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > For this reason, also, the usual suggestions won't help us.
> >
> > That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous
> > pair of licenses?
>
> Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Gettin
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The PDL is very inconvenient to use.
>
> And it doesn't appear to be a free license.
I certainly think it is less free that CC-BY. So I think that moving
towards CC-BY is a movement towards more free. Notice that many of my
reasons for wanting to switch come down to
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:26:51PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > > (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights
> > > (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography)
> >
> > Is this trying to reverse the author name purge condition? I'm not
> > sure that appealing to fair use covers it.
>
> N
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > How do you deal with bibliographies?
[snip]
> > There *has* to be room for more than just "Ray wrote...".
>
> Not particularly. The traditional method is to wait until they're dead
> and forgotten, and their estate has disappeared.
:-(
Okay, I guess that "fair use" di
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:47:49PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> We also want to put our work on the OpenOffice.org website. And OOo has a
> rather limited set of options. For written text, the options are the
> Public Documentation License and the CC-BY.
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:40:07PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wrote ... "
> > and include a chunk of copyrighted material within limited
> > parameters called "fair dealing".
For reference, "fair dealing" mostly just means
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on Ray, you know that's now what I've been saying. Back to the post
> that started this thread. I want to add a "clarification" letter to fix
> the problem you just mentioned. Would you like to help me write one? I
> posted a proposal on this thre
MJ Ray wrote:
> Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for
> > written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software.
>
> Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free, like prevent
> honest mention of
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wrote ... "
> > and include a chunk of copyrighted material within limited
> > parameters called "fair dealing".
> How do you deal with bibliographies? What about saying "Ray doesn't lik
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for
> written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software.
Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free, like prevent
honest mention of your name outside authorsh
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] This concept is pretty easy to grasp. You can add
> restrictions, unless there is an SA in the license. You can not remove
> restrictions.
Presumably one cannot add to a ND licence either?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
MJ Ray wrote:
> Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wrote ... "
> and include a chunk of copyrighted material within limited
> parameters called "fair dealing".
How do you deal with bibliographies? What about saying "Ray doesn't like
Lessig"? There *has* to be room for more than j
MJ Ray wrote:
> Please, dual license if you have to use one of those other
> licences in order to meet some rule of the OOo project. You
> may find it's easier to get OOo to add a licence option than
> to persuade CC to make any licence fit with DFSG.
Getting anything approved at OOo is like pull
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But those cases are covered by Fair Use rights. You are always allowed to
> say "Jeremy said ..." :) or to put someone's work (and name) on a
> bibliography, or a footnote. Those are all "fair use".
Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wr
Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Apparently the CC licenses are carefully cooked to work well with each
> > other.
>
> What do you mean?
> Many of them are incompatible with each other: how can they "work well
> with each other"?
Warning: I am not a CC rep. I'm just another guy who has posted several
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Are you, as a copyright holder, considering to use a CC license?
Yes.
> I would recommend you to choose a clearly DFSG-free and urge your
> fellows to do the same.
We also want to put our work on the OpenOffice.org website. And OOo has a
rather limited set of options. F
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:49:12 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons
> Attribution license, used for our work:
Are you, as a copyright holder, considering to use a CC license?
I would recommend you to choose a clearly DFSG-free and urge your
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:28:02 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > Yes, we often do things like this when upstream has gotten attached
> > to one of the crappier licenses.
>
> Based on an initial comment, it looks like CC might be in that boat.
I'm afraid you are right... :
Jamie Fox wrote:
> > (*) The license does not interfere with fair-use rights. For
> > example, you can always quote from our work and attribute the text.
>
> To me this seems unnecessary; section 2 of the CC-BY licence is:
>
> 2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to
MJ Ray wrote:
> > The letter could just clarify that (1) the author names don't have to
> > be prominent,
>
> That would probably work.
:-)
> > (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights
> > (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography)
>
> Is this trying to reverse the author name purge
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> LICENSE CLARIFICATION
> [...]
> (*) The license does not interfere with fair-use rights. For
> example, you can always quote from our work and attribute the text.
To me this seems unnecessary; section 2 of the CC-BY licence is:
2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in th
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The letter could just clarify that (1) the author names don't have to
> be prominent,
That would probably work.
> (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights
> (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography)
Is this trying to reverse the author name
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> In any event, would you (Debian-legal) help me draft a short and simple
> letter that would clarify away the problems?
How's this? :
LICENSE CLARIFICATION
This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons
Attribution license, used for our work:
(*
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Yes, we often do things like this when upstream has gotten attached to
> one of the crappier licenses.
Based on an initial comment, it looks like CC might be in that boat.
Apparently the CC licenses are carefully cooked to work well with each
other. So you can't just ed
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:01:36PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> I just had a thought, regarding the CC-BY license. It looks like the
> license is "essentially free", except that there are some vague points
> that would allow it to be misused.
>
> Can this be fixed by just adding a "clarificati
Hello all,
I just had a thought, regarding the CC-BY license. It looks like the
license is "essentially free", except that there are some vague points
that would allow it to be misused.
Can this be fixed by just adding a "clarification letter"? What I mean is,
I publish something using the CC-
32 matches
Mail list logo
