Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it? The three year offer is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't know where I'll be in three years, and I don't want to worry about being able to provide sources for a CD I gave or sold 3 years before whose contents I wouldn't remember. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the situation at a conference. At the conference I would be giving the sources CD for the cost of the media ($2). Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference. If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not "offering access to copy". So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them wouldn't count. Correct? Daniel. Michael Poole wrote: Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Shipping a CD is not offering access to copy from a designated place, so an equivalent offer is not relevant. Michael Poole -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Shipping a CD is not offering access to copy from a designated place, so an equivalent offer is not relevant. Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse and I don't want to worry about the sources. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question on GPL compliance
Hi all, I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years). Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the GPL is to always send a second CD with the sources. Now, here's another idea. Suppose that when the user clicks "buy" they get a message: "would you like the sources CD? (extra $2)". If they click yes we package it too. If they click no we don't, and never again have to worry about the sources because we did give them a chance. And because the offer was for a CD, it is an "equivalent medium". In your non-lawyer opinion, is this an appropriate use of the GPL? Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera. Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale". By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore theft is not illegal. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Daniel Carrera wrote: My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2". I would be interested to hear afterwards how many people actually asked for this (and how many people took just the binaries CD). It might be useful as a data point next time this question comes up. Sure. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Bas Zoetekouw wrote: How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some CDRs and I know they won't go to waste. Sure, that should be ok. My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2". This seems to be the least cumbersome solution. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Andrew Suffield wrote: You aren't required to give copies of the source to everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other options either), then they would be breaking the law. This is also the easiest way to deal with your case - have copies of the source on hand, and give them to anybody who asks for them (charging extra for the extra media). Most people probably won't ask. How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some CDRs and I know they won't go to waste. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Don Armstrong wrote: What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent access.] That's generally what we do at the Debian booth. Now many CDs does the Debian distribution take? Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C. The rest is here: http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Alexander Terekhov wrote: It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example). I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain please? T&C means "Terms and Conditions", right? Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distributing GPL software.
Michael Poole wrote: As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is "noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distribution could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague as to what it means by "noncommercial distribution". These CDs are for the SCALE conference (Sourthern California Linux Expo). I was thinking of selling the CDs at like $1 to recover the cost. I guess that constitutes "commercial" use :( If by "written permission" the GPL means "paper", then I certainly don't have that :( If written can be "electronic" I'll check the distribution to see if it has that. The catch is that when you download a GPLed executable, you usually have "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place", which satisifes section 3(a) but is not a written offer under 3(b). :( Does that mean that all the people selling Knoppix CDs for $2 are breaking the law? It may be that OpenOffice's copyright holders think noncommercial distribution is fine if it includes a link to the source code but no source code, but as far as I can tell, it is not specifically allowed by the GPL. I'm sure that they are ok with it, since the distribution project actually makes an ISO available for people to download and distribute. And they encourage selling. But I'd still like to comply with the GPL. Thanks for the help. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Distributing GPL software.
Hello all, Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the source code available for three years (section 3). The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's not practical to distribute the source code. In my CD I also want to include KOffice and Abiword, which makes the problem worse. Is there any way out of this? I'm not modifying the source at all. I just download the tar.gz file and put it on a CD. Does this clause mean that everyone who is giving out OpenOffice or Knoppix CDs is breaking the law? I hope that section 3c might save me here. Here's my reasoning: when I downloaded OpenOffice I didn't get the sources. So, by section 3b, I must have a promise to the sources. So, by section 3c, I can transfer that promise to you. Does that work? Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions on the PDL
Hello, A few months ago I asked for opinions on the Public Documentation License (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html) and I got two interesting responses: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00236.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00260.html In addition to what was said on those posts, I have a concern over section 3.3: 3.3. Description of Modifications. All Documentation to which You contribute must identify the changes You made to create that Documentation and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Documentation provided by the Initial Writer and include the name of the Initial Writer in the Documentation or via an electronic link that describes the origin or ownership of the Documentation. The foregoing change documentation may be created by using an electronic program that automatically tracks changes to the Documentation, and such changes must be available publicly for at least five years following release of the changed Documentation. My concerns are: 1. It's not clear how precise the list of modifications must be. It's not clear if I can say "edited section 4" or I must include every sentence that was changed. This legal uncertainty makes me nervous. 2. For colaborative work, where you have 20 contributors passing the file around from one to the next (this is how my project works), this seems like an undue burden. 3. The 5 years thing makes the burden even worse. 4. I don't know how this license would deal with a derivative of a derivative. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email. \/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were / were severely inconvenienced. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined > > in the section titled Authors. > > I suppose "its contributers as defined..." would count as an > readily-recognizable abbreviation to the copyright holders. Though I'd > suggest "as listed", because "as defined" doesn't make sense. Thanks. Fixed. -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you > > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent > > releases GPLv2 only. > > Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted > contributions from B, with the "or later" option, and it turns out > that A does not approve of v3. Now B refuses to drop this, so A is > effectively forced to distribute his code under a license he does not > approve of. No, if you get code as "GPLv2 or later", you can pick either GPLv2 or pick something later. In your example, A can say "I pick GPLv2" and make a GPLv2 fork. It's like dual licensing. At least, that's what the Debian FAQ says :-) > I'd be very cautious about placing my code at the hands of a third > party in such a manner, and I think it is unfortunate that so many > authors release code under the GPL (with "or later" option), without > properly considering the implications. I guess it comes down to whether those copyright holders trust the FSF to not totally screw it up. I'd think they would have to do something really bad with the GPLv3 for this to be a problem. Consider an extreme case. Suppose GPLv3 is non-free, propietary. That means that your "GPLv2 or later" work is now dual licensed: GPLv2/proprietary But that is still free. It's like MySQL for example (GPL/proprietary). As long as the GPLv2 is an option, the work is free. Or am I just confused? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Two recent articles on the topic are at Yes, I've read those articles. But people here seem to imply something really bad going on with the GPLv3. Whereas those articles gave me the impression that it was promising. > Areas of attention apparently include patents and signed code. I don't know about signed code. I thought that addressing patents would be good. (disclaimer: I'm speaking from a position of ignorance) Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > I'm interested in why you think it's not. Wow, hey. I was just asking a question. I didn't know there was an issue here. I certainly haven't thought about it half as much as you have. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Henning Makholm wrote: > Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the > last few years are to be trusted, does not strike me as a bad thing at > all). This issue is new to me. What are those signals? What are you talking about? Do you have a URL that might help me get up to speed? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Matthew Palmer wrote: > I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out, if it > contains significant language changes along the lines of the GFDL (which I > believe it will, from statements I've read from RMS and Hasn Reiser, amongst > others), between people who decide to go "v2 only" and those who like v3 and > will go "v2 or later" or even "v3 or later", which will effectively produce > licence-incompatible forks. :-( Let's hope that the powers that be have enough foresight to avoid this as much as possible. I think that the GPLv2 needs to be updated to, somehow, deal with the problem of software patents. Ok, IANAL, but I'd like to see a clause that says, "I won't sue you for any sw patents I might have covering this code". The phrasing would be tricky to get right, but you get my meaning. I am very worried about sw patents, and I'm hoping that the GPLv3 will address them to some extent. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linux and GPLv2
Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux > > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct? > > That would be the case. Is this a problem? For a large colaborative project, possibly. Using only the GPLv2 means you are trapped in that license. Having an "or later" allows some measure of adaptability. Suppose that there is a good reason why the GPLv2 needs to be updated (e.g. to deal with software patents). Then you would like to have the choice of moving to the GPLv3 if you want. > What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3? Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent releases GPLv2 only. The point is, the "or later" gives you more flexibility and choice. I think it's a prudent precaution. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
Linux and GPLv2
Hello, My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2 exclusively. That is, instead of the usual "GPL version 2 or later" it just says "GPL version 2". Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help: Copyright notice
Hi guys, It's me again :-) I asked my team aobut using a dual license, GPL / CC-BY. So far the response has been good. Several people have said "yay" and no one has said "nay". We are currently drafting the copyright notice. Some people wanted to make the terms clearer. So this is what I came up with: This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined in the section titled Authors. You can distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/). I have now been asked to run this by you. To see if anyone here sees a problem with it. In particular, someone was wondering if we were required to add "under the terms of" before "the Creative Commons...". I am pretty sure we don't need that, on the basis that Perl's notice doesn't have it. This is Perl's notice: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License" which comes with this Kit. Notice that the notice I wrote follows the Perl one. I figured that Perl is a tried-and-true Free Software project with a dual license. Thoughts? Comments? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Humberto Massa wrote: > I - personally - loathe the "or later" stuff. When you license some work > under a some version "or later", you are trusting eg in your case both > the FSF/GNU and the CC not to botch the next versions. But I want to give my project the ability to grab those if we like them. For example, suppose we restrict ourselves to the current CC-BY license. Then, in a year or two, CC produces a new CC-BY that fixes all the problems that you guys have listed here. I wouldn't be able to move unless I wanted to re-do everything. That's a situation I really want to avoid. On the other hand, what if they do botch them? Well, the present ones are still valid, and we can keep using them. Having an "or later" does not force me to move. I am granting an additional set of rights, which I'm not fully aware of. But I am certainly not removing any rights. Question: I thought that the "or later" was also standard for GPL software. Isn't it? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > That is not a copyright notice, at least in the US. Title 17, Sec. > 401(b) gives the form of a notice fairly clearly: The symbol ©, the word > "copyright", or the abbreviation "copr."; the year of the first > publication of the work; and the name of the owner of the copyright owner. How's this: This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined in the section titled Authors. This document is released under the terms ... Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote: > s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or > whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended > copyright statement.] Okay. I made it "at your option". I like simple language. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Alright guys, Here's the lates (and hopefully final) draft of the copyright section: This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of any part receiving it. How does that look? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote: > Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point > out specific problems with the license that preclude its application > to a specific class of work. Also provide an alternative :-) No license will be perfect. There will always be drawbacks. The goal is not to pick something infallible, but to pick something suitable. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Two suggestions:
>
> * The GNU GPL and the CC-BY both have several versions. For the GPL,
> you should explicitly say "GNU General Public License, version 2", or
> "GNU General Public License, version 2 or later". For the CC-BY, do
> something similar, depending on the versions you want.
Alright. I think that "version 2 or later" is the standard, right? Is that
what you would recommend? For CC-BY I could do the same ("version 2.0 or
later"). I guess that this way, if the CC ever gets around to correcting
the CC-BY license, I can move to the new one without hassle.
Your thoughts ?
Thanks for the help.
As a sidenote, I got a response back from our "chief editor" and she likes
the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I think that the others will too.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL for documentation ?
Humberto Massa wrote: > Yes, you could start with "this document is (C) its contributors as > defined in the file AUTHORS" ... Okay, how about this : This document is (C) 2004 its contributors as defined in the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (http://...), or under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://...), at the option of any part receiving it. So, the document would have a section (e.g. an appendix) with a list of contributors. This should meet the requirements of both the GPL and CC-BY, while making it easy for other people to meet the requirements also. They'd only have one file to distribute to maintain attribution. What do you guys think? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
MJ Ray wrote: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals It looks like the only problem is having to provide sources. If my team goes for a dual GPL/CC-BY system, we can wiggle out of that easily. The printed manual can be plain CC-BY, but you are always free to download the sources from the website under the GPL/CC-BY. Yes? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL for documentation ?
Hello, Jeremy just had an interesting idea. About using a dual license. In my case, I would pick GPL/CC-BY. I just emailed a couple of people with the idea, to "test the waters". I was hoping you could help me understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation: 1) The GPL language talks about software. How does that apply to something that is not software? 2) How do I assign the GPL/CC-BY to a document? I guess the first page of the file would say something like "this document is released under the GPL and the CC-BY license ...". Could someone help me produce a boilerplate for the license? I want to make it as short and simple as possible. 3) How do I attribute authors? In our project, each document is reviewed and edited several times by several different people. It's very difficult to say who changed what. This is one of our motivations for wanting to move away from the PDL in the first place. The GPL doesn't seem to have any such requirement. So, how would I name the authors? Can I get away with an appendix with a list of contributors? 4) Is there anything I should be aware of that I forgot to ask? :-) Thank you for your help. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Jeremy Hankins wrote: > How about dual licensing? License it under both the GPL (or whatever > license the software you're documenting uses -- see below) and the > CC-by. That's a thought... it's a good thought. I'll discuss that with the others. > But if you dual license now, when the time comes that you can switch > entirely to your preferred license, you quietly drop the CC-by with no > extra fuss. Switching licenses is *hard* when you have a lot of > contributors to contact and get approval from. Well, I do like the CC-BY very much and wouldn't want to drop it. But your point about dual licensing is still strong. > As for which other license to use, think about the possibility that you > will want your license to be compatible with that of the software you > document. Someone down the road may want to use excerpts from your > documentation as context help, or something like that. If the licenses > are incompatible that may not be possible -- at least not without > jumping some legal hoops. I hadn't thought of that. I'm glad you mentioned it. The situation is a tad complicated, but not too much. OpenOffice.org is dual-licensed (LGPL/SISSL). I wouldn't want the documentation to be triple licensed. However, I could make it GPL/CC-BY, and that would still work for GNU/Linux distros. Because OOo has a GPL-compatible license, a distro could ship OOo plus the docs, all under the GPL. I like the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I'll ask our editor what she thinks. After she and I talk about it, we'll bring this up to the rest of the gang. My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using the GPL for documentation. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinion on the PDL ?
ial Writer, or whoever may modify this License]. No one other than _ [Insert name of the foundation, company, Initial Writer, or whoever may modify this License] has the right to modify the terms of this License. Filling in the name of the Initial Writer, Original Documentation or Contributor in the notice described in the Appendix shall not be deemed to be Modifications of this License. 6.0 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE ON AN "AS IS'' BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE DOCUMENTATION IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY, ACCURACY, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE DOCUMENTATION IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY DOCUMENTATION PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT THE INITIAL WRITER OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR) ASSUME THE COST OF ANY NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY DOCUMENTATION IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER. 7.0 TERMINATION. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses to the Documentation which are properly granted shall survive any termination of this License. Provisions which, by their nature, must remain in effect beyond the termination of this License shall survive. 8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER IN TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL THE INITIAL WRITER, ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR ANY DISTRIBUTOR OF DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY SUPPLIER OF ANY OF SUCH PARTIES, BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER DAMAGES OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE USE OF THE DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 9.0 U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS. If Documentation is being acquired by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or by a U.S. Government prime contractor or subcontractor (at any tier), then the Government's rights in Documentation will be only as set forth in this Agreement; this is in accordance with 48 CFR 227.7201 through 227.7202-4 (for Department of Defense (DOD) acquisitions) and with 48 CFR 2.101 and 12.212 (for non-DOD acquisitions). 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS. This License represents the complete agreement concerning the subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law, excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes or any litigation relating to this License, the losing party is responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. Appendix Public Documentation License Notice The contents of this Documentation are subject to the Public Documentation License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may only use this Documentation if you comply with the terms of this License. A copy of the License is available at __[Insert hyperlink]. The Original Documentation is _. The Initial Writer of the Original Documentation is ___ Copyright (C)_[Insert year(s)]. All Rights Reserved. (Initial Writer contact(s):[Insert hyperlink/alias]). Contributor(s): __. Portions created by __ are Copyright (C)_[Insert year(s)]. All Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):[Insert hyperlink/alias]). NOTE: The text of this Appendix may differ slightly from the text of the notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the text of this Appendix rather than the text found in the Original Documentation for Your Modifications. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Andrew Suffield wrote: > But you can approve a mangled variation on CC-BY, if you pretend that > it's really the same thing? So just 'clarify' it into the MIT > license... Well... I'm asking about whether one can use a letter to clarify ambiguities. For example, if it's not clear exactly what is meant by "references", maybe I can say that "references" refers to "authorship references". Can I do that? Or is that the same as making a new license? I was hoping it'd be the same license, with an explanation of what those terms were meant as. I gather from your post that this isn't how a clarification letter works. :-( Best, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The PDL is very inconvenient to use. > > And it doesn't appear to be a free license. I certainly think it is less free that CC-BY. So I think that moving towards CC-BY is a movement towards more free. Notice that many of my reasons for wanting to switch come down to wanting to do something that I'm not currently permitted. > > For this reason, also, the usual suggestions won't help us. > > That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous > pair of licenses? Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Getting anything changed is difficult and takes time. Before, the only license allowed for documentation was the PDL. Recently, we approved the CC-BY. I think that the CC-BY is better than the PDL, so I want to take it. This doesn't preclude the probability of there ever being another license. I expect there will be. But that will not be for a long time. I am hoping that the Debian concerns with the CC-BY can be addressed with a clarification letter. If it can't, then I'll just accept that the the work can only go in the non-free archive until the CC changes the license. This would be sad, but not catastrophic. After all, this isn't Debian documentation we're talking about. But I will still go for the CC-BY because I think it is a step in the right direction. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Andrew Suffield wrote: > > How do you deal with bibliographies? [snip] > > There *has* to be room for more than just "Ray wrote...". > > Not particularly. The traditional method is to wait until they're dead > and forgotten, and their estate has disappeared. :-( Okay, I guess that "fair use" didn't go nearly as far as I thought. Alright, then please help me understand. What exactly are the references that you feel the license should permit, but the current wording doesn't? How would you compose a clarification letter to address those? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
MJ Ray wrote: > Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for > > written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software. > > Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free, like prevent > honest mention of your name outside authorship attribution, then you > probably need to make it non-free with something like I understand > the current CC-BY to be. Come on Ray, you know that's now what I've been saying. Back to the post that started this thread. I want to add a "clarification" letter to fix the problem you just mentioned. Would you like to help me write one? I posted a proposal on this thread. How would you modify it? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
MJ Ray wrote: > Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wrote ... " > and include a chunk of copyrighted material within limited > parameters called "fair dealing". How do you deal with bibliographies? What about saying "Ray doesn't like Lessig"? There *has* to be room for more than just "Ray wrote...". Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
MJ Ray wrote: > Please, dual license if you have to use one of those other > licences in order to meet some rule of the OOo project. You > may find it's easier to get OOo to add a licence option than > to persuade CC to make any licence fit with DFSG. Getting anything approved at OOo is like pulling teeth. Trust me, I am in the community council. :-) As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Francesco Poli wrote: > > Apparently the CC licenses are carefully cooked to work well with each > > other. > > What do you mean? > Many of them are incompatible with each other: how can they "work well > with each other"? Warning: I am not a CC rep. I'm just another guy who has posted several questions on the CC mailing list. The point is that it's not hard to figure out which licenses can be combined with which. For example, a BY license can be combined with a BY-NC work, and the result can be BY-NC or BY-NC-SA, or BY-NC-ND. But it can't be BY. This concept is pretty easy to grasp. You can add restrictions, unless there is an SA in the license. You can not remove restrictions. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Francesco Poli wrote: > Are you, as a copyright holder, considering to use a CC license? Yes. > I would recommend you to choose a clearly DFSG-free and urge your > fellows to do the same. We also want to put our work on the OpenOffice.org website. And OOo has a rather limited set of options. For written text, the options are the Public Documentation License and the CC-BY. http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html The PDL is very inconvenient to use. There is some boilerplate that has to be added to every file, plus an entire copy of the license. And you have to keep track of all the changes. This last one is a significant problem because we use a very distributed system, where each file is reviewed many times by several different people. The PDL is also unclear about how you combine several PDL documents. Finally, we find the PDL complicated. For this reason, we are looking at the CC-BY. For this reason, also, the usual suggestions won't help us. Fixing the license so that Debian likes it is desirable, but it isn't imperative. This work is not being done for Debian. But I think that it's a good thing to have Debian happy if it can be accomodated. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Jamie Fox wrote: > > (*) The license does not interfere with fair-use rights. For > > example, you can always quote from our work and attribute the text. > > To me this seems unnecessary; section 2 of the CC-BY licence is: > > 2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, > limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or > other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under > copyright law or other applicable laws. Indeed... good catch. But that means that concern #2 deserves another look. Jeremy daid: "The case we're worried about that seems most egregious (e.g., a biography, and you're required to purge the name of the subject because he happens to have contributed some material and he doesn't like the result) is probably not intentional." But those cases are covered by Fair Use rights. You are always allowed to say "Jeremy said ..." :) or to put someone's work (and name) on a bibliography, or a footnote. Those are all "fair use". Right? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
MJ Ray wrote: > > The letter could just clarify that (1) the author names don't have to > > be prominent, > > That would probably work. :-) > > (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights > > (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography) > > Is this trying to reverse the author name purge condition? I'm not > sure that appealing to fair use covers it. Not the whole thing. The problem lies with the mis-use of the purge clause. The purge clause is good, for example, if you modify my work to the point where it says the opposite of what I intended, I wouldn't want to be in the list of authors. On the other hand, that clause should not prevent you from using legitimate quotes from me, or putting my work in your bibliography, etc. Those are the real issues with the clause. And that's the part that fair use would cover. > > and (3) CC is not a party to the license. > > Is this about the trademark bit? As it's not part of the > licence, *you* can just delete that part and not include it > in the licence for your original work. No need for a letter. Sounds good. > That's why it would be good for CC to make it clear. It sounds like an easy change too. I'll keep bugging them about it. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Daniel Carrera wrote: > In any event, would you (Debian-legal) help me draft a short and simple > letter that would clarify away the problems? How's this? : LICENSE CLARIFICATION This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons Attribution license, used for our work: (*) The author names need not be prominent. For example, a list names under the heading "user guide contributors" is acceptable. (*) The license does not interfere with fair-use rights. For example, you can always quote from our work and attribute the text. (*) The Creative Commons is not a party to this license. How's that? I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. One of the things that make the CC-BY license groovy is that it's simple and in plain English. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Andrew Suffield wrote: > Yes, we often do things like this when upstream has gotten attached to > one of the crappier licenses. Based on an initial comment, it looks like CC might be in that boat. Apparently the CC licenses are carefully cooked to work well with each other. So you can't just edit one, you'd have to review them all. At least, that's the message I gathered. I'll still ask them about fixing it. But even if they say "yes", I expect the revised licenses won't be up for some time. In any event, would you (Debian-legal) help me draft a short and simple letter that would clarify away the problems? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Hello all, I just had a thought, regarding the CC-BY license. It looks like the license is "essentially free", except that there are some vague points that would allow it to be misused. Can this be fixed by just adding a "clarification letter"? What I mean is, I publish something using the CC-BY license, and I attach a letter to clarify how I read the license. The letter could just clarify that (1) the author names don't have to be prominent, (2) the license does not interfere with fair-use rights (e.g. quoting you on a bibliography) and (3) CC is not a party to the license. It seems like a simple and expedient solution. How would you feel about that? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY license.
Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Thanks for the direct link. A lot of folks prefer the actual text to be > posted as well, though. It makes things easier for those (like myself) > who are behind slow connections or even read mail offline. Heh. Just goes to show how different people will reach different conclusions from the same premises. At OpenOffice.org you get told to be succinct and provide links out of consideration for people on slow connections. :-) > Me too. Obviously some of the CC licenses aren't intended to be what > the DFSG would pass as Free, but others (like this one) should in > principle be Free, it seems to me. Maybe with a go-between who knows CC > better than we do we can get the issues resolved. It's worth a shot. Worst thing that could happen is, I hit a brick wall and decide to work on something else :-) > If the license said that as well it'd probably be fine. But the license > does talk about the prominence of the author's names (from section 4b): Yes, it talks about prominence. But it doesn't say "make it prominent". It says "make it as prominent as...". So, having them all small seems ok. > So I have to echo Andrew Suffield here. Frankly, I'm very uneasy with > the whole idea of restrictions on how prominently parts of the document > are displayed. But perhaps if what "comparable authorship credit" means > were laid out more explicitly that would help. Ok. At least I understand where the issues lie. > Did you mean to skip the second issue -- that of having to purge names? Yes, because I don't have a solution for it. At first sight, it looks like it may be something where Debian and CC just won't agree. > I agree that that's probably an oversight. The original reason for the > issue, I think, is that a lot of us viewed the license via text-only > browsers, where the distinctions based on background color weren't > evident. When viewed that way it looked very much like part of the > license. If it could be made explicit that the last couple of > paragraphs (starting with "Creative Commons is not a party to this > license") is not part of the license itself, this issue would go away. Ray suggested a header that says "Creative Commons Trademark License - Not Part of the Copyirght License". That sounds reasonable. That's what I'll suggest. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CC-BY license.
Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's > > website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license." > > > > I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license. > > So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly > corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it > hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure. Alright, let me have a go at this one. It looks like the simplest thing to fix. If I hit a brick wall, I won't bother bringing up the other issue. What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious? > We did, ages ago. They didn't. That's a very, very bad sign. It means > they're either completely incompetent, or they have some reason for > keeping it broken that we don't know about. Let's avoid conspiracy theories if we can :-) Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC-BY license.
Hello, I'm writing about the free/non-free status of the Creative Commons Attribution license, version 2.0 : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode Last year this list discussed the version 1.0 license, and concluded that it was non-free : http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-006-ccby Version 2.0 looks almost the same to me, so I assume that the concerns remain. I would be glad to see the CC-BY license inch a little closer towards "free" status. The Debian-legal page above includes this justification (among others) for the non-free status: It appears (though it's slightly unclear) that credit to original author(s) must be as prominently displayed, and in the same location, as credit to any other author. This restricts modification (DFSG §3). This seems to be based on this email from Jeremy Hankins: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00279.html Where Jeremy wrote: This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It also requires that you preserve the original title along with the original author's name. I'd say this is non-free. Not because it also requires preserving the title (that I see no problem with), but because it (and the original author) must be as prominently displayed as the new title/author. The license doesn't say that the name must be prominent. It says that it must be "at least as prominent" as other credit. Last week I asked the cc-community list if I could just have an appendix titled "contributors" and put everyone's names on it. They said that should be fine. Now, back to this page: http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/dls-006-ccby The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license." I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license. What would you suggest the CC team do to make this sufficiently obvious? I will relay your suggestion to the CC team. They're a nice bunch. Who knows? They might just make the alteration. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
