Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with taking part of a work under a different license and combining it with the GPL work to distribute. This is true only, of course, if the other license prevents changing the license of the whole work to GPL. This is the case for FDL, which is the other license in question in this thread. -- \ 'Did you sleep well?' 'No, I made a couple of mistakes.' -- | `\ Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:21:26 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what if the recording was of actual people playing actual instruments? You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from 'source' at build time? what _is_ the source? The preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. [...] Exactly what I would have answered. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgph23OEKWXBA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please vet this modified CC license for uploading FoF music to non-free
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:59:49 +1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/27/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:31:21 -0400 Jason Spiro wrote: [...] So, I took http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode and made some changes. Do you have the permission to create a derivative license of CC-by-nd-nc-v1.0 ? I don't recall which is the Creative Commons policy on modifying their licenses. CC releases their license texts public domain. http://creativecommons.org/policies: Except where noted otherwise below in our Trademark Policy, all content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We do not assert a copyright in the text of our licenses. Ah, OK: I stand corrected, then. Sorry for raising a non-existent issue... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpXoSMeOBQR7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult a dictionary. If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free. Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary won't help. Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG) Proprietary == non-free If you mean non-free, just say non-free. Don't use confusing terms like proprietary, which belongs on the closed/open axis, not the free/non-free axis. It seems we are talking different jargons here... :-( I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the availability of source code (which is a necessary, but non-sufficient, condition for freeness). More often I see the term open source used and abused and misused for any kind of meaning, hence I won't comment any further on it. I don't see the term proprietary as more confusing than free. Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are perfectly clear to me. If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term free (including gratuitous), none of which specifies which freedoms should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it free software. Consequently, if you want to avoid any possibility of confusion, you have to replace the terms proprietary and free with some newly invented words (weruqilaztic? yuprrsabbbysh? xxawrothent'jasa? ...). I don't think that would be a good idea. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgplP0X4uPLtE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult a dictionary. If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free. Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning.[1] We use free in our conversations about licensing and software because of the meaning that it already posseses, not the other way around. Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary won't help. The word proprietary has a perfectly well defined meaning in this field. It means closed or exclusive. That people mistakenly conflate it with being non-freeness has little to do with its actual meaning. Things that are non-proprietary are perfectly capable of being non-free. See for example the works in non-free for which we actually have source code. They are clearly not proprietary, but are definetly not free. I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the availability of source code (which is a necessary, but non-sufficient, condition for freeness). It can refer to that, but it can also refer to specifications, standards, protocols, goods, etc. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. I don't see the term proprietary as more confusing than free. Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are perfectly clear to me. If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term free (including gratuitous), none of which specifies which freedoms should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it free software. English has a great deal of words which have multiple definitions on which generations of english speakers have agreed upon and/or abused. The meaning of a word which has multiple definitions is generally clarified from context, and if not, it's trival to ask. What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed upon. Don Armstrong 1: Not surpisingly, the meaning we use is actually the first meaning in most dictionaries; gratis typically is found farther down. -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
