Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:32 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: ... and the fact that they refuse to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill for getting more serious problems fixed ... The Debian Creative Commons Workgroup has been talking to CC for about a month now. We've had some pretty successful interchanges, and I think we're moving forward nicely. So: don't count out the possibility of DFSG-compatible CC licenses in the near future. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: definition of use
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license that I wrote.
That's right, it's me, random Joe off the street as Mr. Palmer put it.
And, yes, IANAL(Of course IANAL. Lawyers would not consider brevity to
be a value in an instrument, and for good reason, I know(Despite the
lack of any indication of such knowledge). ;).
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
This definition does not match the definition of usar (=to use) in
Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
lots of stuff here
While the length of my response might not indicate it, I am not married
to this license. I wrote it in an attempt to create a *very* concise
authorization of I.P. use. BSD and MIT licenses satisfy my needs, save
brevity and generality. For instance, BSD and MIT refer to 'source
code', 'software', and 'documentation', which I would gather refer to
computer programs, but how do images and other kinds of works fall
into those terms(I guess SVG might fall into source code ;)? What if I
wanted to open source other kinds of works? I thought it would be more
fitting to have a license that actually uses the terminology of the laws
that specify the restrictions of the granted exclusive rights. It really
is a shame that 'use' is not defined in Title 17.
The only useful conclusion that I have been able to directly draw from
these discussions is that it is not *self evident* that 'use'
constitutes the exercising/enjoyment of the bundle of rights given to
the owner of copyrighted works by U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1[2].
So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
music?
In Brazilian computer programs law, what we *do* have is that using a
program is defined by its use license contract terms, meaning the
execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our fair use
clauses (art. 6ยบ Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
citation with source in context of education; similarity by
functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
consumer-protection law.
In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word use in the case of a
computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
by other programs.
Anyways, I'm getting too tired to think; perhaps when I hear back, I
will have more positions and points. That is, if you or someone else
doesn't provide something fatal.
[1]http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_17.php
[2]http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
IANAL, TINLA, this is just MHO.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patent Act of 2005
Please see http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/comprint042005.pdf for an early print of the Patent Act of 2005. The bill does a number of good things for us, and currently has a really egregious portion that establishes a new standard for reasonable and effective accessability of prior art that would further reduce the standard for novelty of patents by making some prior art irrelevant. I am working on this, as are CCIA, EFF and the Public Patent Foundation. Thanks Bruce Perens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of use
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:23 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
This definition does not match the definition of usar (=to use) in
Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
Ignoring the context of the source is no way to make an appropriate
translation. If the above is the definition of 'use' in the context of
copyright law, then usar is an inappropriate translation as it fails
to carry the same effect/meaning.
To give a more extreme example of the above, if instrument were to be
translated into a word that means a device used to make audible music,
then the entire license would become ridiculous.
So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
music?
In Brazilian computer programs law, what we *do* have is that using a
program is defined by its use license contract terms, meaning the
execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our fair use
clauses (art. 6 Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
citation with source in context of education; similarity by
functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
consumer-protection law.
In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
Yes, Title 17 has similar limitations on the exclusive rights.
So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word use in the case of a
computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
by other programs.
I think one could safely say that of usar in the context of Brazilian
law, but, apparently, not of use in the context of U.S. copyright law
and Title 17.
--
Regards, James William Pye
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:20:00 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: MJ Ray wrote: BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html Unfortunately, that is a subtly different X11 license from the one at opensource.org. :-( (X11 stuff is actually under a mix of very similar but not quite identical licenses.) I prefer the one at opensource.org, because it lacks the unnecessary name of a copyright holder shall not be used... to promote... clause. Wait a second... AFAICT, there are two main licenses that are ambiguously also known as MIT license: the Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) and the X11 license (http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html). AFAIK, the latter is the only one known as X11 license, even though, as you correctly point out, various free X11 implementations (XFree86 before version 4.3.99cannotremember, Xorg, ...) are under a mix of different (but similar) licenses, and not only under the X11 license... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp6HK6HBWjxn.pgp Description: PGP signature
