Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: Regarding the concept of taking the copyright of code: it's what the FSF have been doing since 1992 with Emacs. The difference here is that if you feel strongly about it, you get to keep your copyright. The FSF asks contributers to sign a copyright assignment. You don't have to, and it's not at all a condition of the GPL on emacs. It's just that the FSF won't integrate your patches without one. I assume Best Practical wants to do something similar, and it's just coming across wrong.
Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:12:51AM -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote: I do not consider this to go much further than that. The intention is imho the one DFSG4 tries to carter for. The author wants: a) derivatives being detectable as such. b) derivatives have to keep out of xinetd's namespace. He wants to forbid a derivative being numbered as xinetd 2.3.15, taking away the official version number. If he wants that, the requirement needs to be waived if the work isn't called 'xinetd'. That'd be DFSG-free.
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
tom wrote: In UE we have a directive on database, and it says that there's not copyright on database but there's a new IP right called sui generis. The difference is that it covers less rights than copyright (remember in the european version e.g. droit d'auter) and for less time. The EU database directive does say that databases are protected by copyright - *if* there's creative expression in the selection or arrangement of the elements. So my Top 10 pop songs of 2002 list is a database protected by copyright. The sui generis database right is indeed separate. It requires that there was a substantial investment made to create the database. But take care, 'cause i think that in usa you have a doctrine called sweet of the brow which says that a non creative work may has copyright just for the colletting activity. It'amezing but i red about it. I'm not specialized in us law so others may know much more The 'sweat of the brow' doctrine was rejected in _Feist_, and this Supreme Court decision also said that collections of facts must be the result of creative expression. I think this is in line with the EU database directive. Right now US producers cannot claim sui generis database rights in Europe. Their home country does not offer similar protection for European producers, and that's a requirement of the directive. Also see http://www.iusmentis.com/databases/ Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: CC-based proposal (was FDL: no news?)
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote: Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we clearly haven't found the correct approach yet. So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0 licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Four of them (with NonCommercial or NoDerivatives elements) are clearly not intended to be DSFG-free. It seems to the untrained eye that the other two (Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike) are. The problems we have with these licenses are more or less ones of clarity and wording rather than intention. We could hand this over to Creative Commons with some suggested changes, as well as some information about our project and why having works be DFSG-free is important. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Copyright/License of Debian Constitution
Can you guys on d-l please comment. I think CCing Dwayne would be a suitable thing too. Thanks Zenaan On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 14:22, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask on, but what's the copyright/license status of the Debian Constitution? http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution I'm heading up changes to the constitution of a local non-profit member organization, and I want to adapt the Standard Resolution Procedure for our purposes.
Re: Copyright/License of Debian Constitution
Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 14:22, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask on, but what's the copyright/license status of the Debian Constitution? http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution I'm heading up changes to the constitution of a local non-profit member organization, and I want to adapt the Standard Resolution Procedure for our purposes. As far as I know, the Debian Constitution is under the same license as the Debian website: the Open Publication License, version 1.0 or later. See http://www.debian.org/license . This really needs to be changed to another license, though, since the Open Publication License is non-free. (See http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-005-opl .) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Copyright/License of Debian Constitution (parts 2-3)
Here is the relevant replies on debian-user. On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 04:55, Travis Crump wrote: John Hasler wrote: Dwayne C. Litzenberger writes: I'm not sure if this is the right list to ask on, but what's the copyright/license status of the Debian Constitution? http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution I'm heading up changes to the constitution of a local non-profit member organization, and I want to adapt the Standard Resolution Procedure for our purposes. The procedure is an idea and so not protected by copyright. Just reword it. a) Go try and 'reword' a book and try to pass it off as your own. b) It is a legal document and consequently not necessarily trivial to reword in much the same way that it is generally discouraged for people to try to 'reword' the GPL into their own license.
Re: Copyright/License of Debian Constitution (parts 2-3)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:40:08AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: a) Go try and 'reword' a book and try to pass it off as your own. In a sense, this is what the GNU project is all about. Stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from many sources is research. Copyright is not intended to protect outcomes. -- Raul
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
* Jacobo Tarrio: O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía: They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions. ... which are not Copyright or Intellectual Property laws [...] Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover databases.
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:35:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jacobo Tarrio: O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ?s 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escrib?a: They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions. ... which are not Copyright or Intellectual Property laws [...] Wrong for Germany. Our analogue of copyright law does cover databases. Mechanical compilations, as well as those requiring creative effort? - Matt
