Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 18 Aug 2005 17:42:47 GMT MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > Could I submit a license for > > review just for my own personal interest and even though it is > > unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? > > You could, but you will probably get a lower response. Please > try more general forums like those hosted by the FSFs or on > Usenet. (I'm not really up-to-date: where should we refer to?) It's true that discussing licenses in a vacuum is not (should not be) debian-legal business, but nonetheless there is an issue with your advice, IMHO. Trying other 'forums' will probably produce a *different* answer. We use the DFSG as the guidelines to determine if a work is free or not. Other groups/foundations/projects use *different* criteria. I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing about the GFDL, and similar ones. So, what I ask myself is: | if you feel that the DFSG are the best criteria to determine the | freeness of a work, what's the most appropriate place to discuss about | the freeness of works released under a particular license? To me it's difficult to answer anything but "debian-legal"... -- :-( 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 pgphdyOWIYw8P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
On 18 Aug 2005 17:37:05 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > As such, the permission granted to copy it and use any part with > attribution is needed and might be sufficient With no permission to modify? Have I missed something? -- :-( 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 pgp7a84qsoUq4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Petr Gajdusek wrote:
> The only notice in the documment says:
>
> "This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any
> part of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for
> information about it."
This notice makes no sense at all. Either the document is copyrighted,
and there can be requirements ("mentioning the source") or it's not,
and there are NO requirements. It's not possible to have a work that
is not copyrighted and has requirements for use.
I suggest finding the actual copyright holder and getting either a
real license statement or a dedication to the public domain written
properly to allow lenient licensing in the case that a specific
jurisdiction doesn't have a concept of PD.
Don Armstrong
--
[this space intentionally left blank]
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petr Gajdusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The only notice in the documment says: >> "This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any part >> of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for information >> about it." >> >> Is this sufficient to include publication in main section? > > It may depend where it's from: copyright is automatic in > many countries. > > As such, the permission granted to copy it and use any part with > attribution is needed and might be sufficient, but it looks like > it deliberately discriminates against publishers. I don't think > it follows DFSG 1 or 6. It says something about publishers, but exactly what it's supposed to mean is beyond me. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review. > I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the > entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other > rules are there and what is the scope? Text in the body isn't a rule, but it is strongly preferred. Otherwise, I suggest you follow the lists code of conduct (below). The scope is packages which are either in or intended (preferably with an Intent To Package on http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp) for the debian archive. People (many with copyright scars) offer advice to packagers, upstream authors and others involved. > Could I submit a license for > review just for my own personal interest and even though it is > unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? You could, but you will probably get a lower response. Please try more general forums like those hosted by the FSFs or on Usenet. (I'm not really up-to-date: where should we refer to?) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
Petr Gajdusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only notice in the documment says: > "This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any part > of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for information > about it." > > Is this sufficient to include publication in main section? It may depend where it's from: copyright is automatic in many countries. As such, the permission granted to copy it and use any part with attribution is needed and might be sufficient, but it looks like it deliberately discriminates against publishers. I don't think it follows DFSG 1 or 6. What package is this document in? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
The only notice in the documment says: "This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any part of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for information about it." Is this sufficient to include publication in main section? Thank you for answer. Petr Gajdusek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Thu, 2005-18-08 at 12:10 +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: > Could I submit a license for > review just for my own personal interest and even though it is > unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? Please don't. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] "By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms." -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rules for submitting licenses for review
Hi, I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review. I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other rules are there and what is the scope? Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? TIA... -- Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
