Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? It's a hack, but you can use the part before the word changed and the part after the word changed, with another word in between. It would be far far far nicer to hDve explicit permission, but being allowed to copy parts *might* be sufficient. -- 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: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Maybe, but there's not really much difference in result most times. > I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing > about the GFDL, and similar ones. Do they? FSF don't claim it's a free software licence, but that the desire for it to be one isn't sensible (or something like that). Anyway, yes, non-program licences and patent-related problems are things where debian-legal has a slightly different opinion to FSF leadership, but most aren't about those, licence proliferation is bad and we've done "what licence for text" to death in the archive. -- 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?
** MJ Ray :: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? > > It's a hack, but you can use the part before the word changed and > the part after the word changed, with another word in between. It > would be far far far nicer to hDve explicit permission, but being > allowed to copy parts *might* be sufficient. Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure derivative works: translation to other languages is one of them, and it does not involve copying parts at all. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
On Friday 19 August 2005 06:47 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure derivative > works: translation to other languages is one of them, and it does not > involve copying parts at all. Translation is certainly considered copying. The text isn't the issue, it's the expression that is being copied. What you seem to be talking about is "literal copying". But in the eyes of the law, translation is considered copying of the underlying expression. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
** Sean Kellogg :: > On Friday 19 August 2005 06:47 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > > Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure > > derivative works: translation to other languages is one of them, > > and it does not involve copying parts at all. > > Translation is certainly considered copying. The text isn't the > issue, it's the expression that is being copied. What you seem to > be talking about is "literal copying". But in the eyes of the > law, translation is considered copying of the underlying > expression. > > -Sean Sean, it may be that we are in different tunes because of our different jurisdictions here (I know you are a law student). But down here, non-automated translation is *not* considered copy... it's a transformation that generates a derivative work. Now, your _automated_ (gcc, babelfish) translation is considered a copy, but I was going for the non-automated type. And the DFSG require the possibility of making derivative works. -- Massa
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
On Friday 19 August 2005 08:05 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > Sean, it may be that we are in different tunes because of our > different jurisdictions here (I know you are a law student). But > down here, non-automated translation is *not* considered copy... > it's a transformation that generates a derivative work. Now, your > _automated_ (gcc, babelfish) translation is considered a copy, but I > was going for the non-automated type. And the DFSG require the > possibility of making derivative works. I understand that you are discussing non-automated translations. You are talking about situations where the translater is adding something to the work (the mental work necessary to keep the meaning between languages), which is the very definition of a derivative work (the work +/- something different). But like I said, the law in the States (and this may not be the case elsewhere) is that when you create a derivative work you are engaged in some kind of copying. Whether that copying literal or ephemeral, it's all copying. This actually leads to a unique situation where if you have a tangible copy of something and modify the tangible copy, you have not actaully made a derivative work (no copying) and thus avoid infringment (case is Lee v. Art). But to be honest, I have no idea how this relates to this thread... I just thought I'd share :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 19 Aug 2005 07:28:20 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Maybe, but there's not really much difference in result most times. I'm not so sure... :-( See MPL, QPL, GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa, ... in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html See MPL, QPL, ... in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html > > > I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing > > about the GFDL, and similar ones. > > Do they? FSF don't claim it's a free software licence, but that the > desire for it to be one isn't sensible (or something like that). Granted. But when the question is "is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation?" their answer is very different from our... :-( > > Anyway, yes, non-program licences and patent-related problems are > things where debian-legal has a slightly different opinion to FSF > leadership, but most aren't about those, licence proliferation is > bad and we've done "what licence for text" to death in the archive. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her "if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away" * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended * many other people contribute to her work * an RFP or ITP is filed against that work in the Debian BTS * it's time for debian-legal to check the license * ouch! the work does not comply with the DFSG: must be rejected from main * it's too late to persuade people to relicense: another work is lost Maybe we could have talked to her earlier in this process... :-( -- :-( 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 pgpbxEdKG5ova.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:17:21AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > But like I said, the law in the States (and this may not be the case > elsewhere) is that when you create a derivative work you are engaged in some > kind of copying. AFAIK this quirk is unique to US law. Commonwealth and EU law are both structured differently. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
