Endorsements (was Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the endorsements separately from the rest of the document? i.e. the core content could be under the DFCL (unambiguously free & GPL compatible) while endorsements, odes to pets, etc. would be under a separate license of the original author's choosing. The only other thing I can think of is some sort of "author severability" clause (kind of like the use of "Alan Smithee" by film directors): a provision that states any modification to sections A, B, or C of the text requires the removal of the original author's name from the text and/or a clear statement that the text is a modified version of the author's work. IMHO that wouldn't run afoul of the DFSG, as it is similar in spirit to DFSG clause 4. (Admittedly, some people dislike the "patch files" section of Clause 4, but this wouldn't be a patch files situation - it's analogous to the rename or re-version portion.) That way if someone edits the GNU Manifesto to add "RMS likes goats" halfway through, RMS can say "you can't call that the GNU manifesto any more, even though I do, in fact, like goats, and while you're at it take my damn name off!" (*). Don't mind me, I'm not really awake :-) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Endorsements (was Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the > endorsements separately from the rest of the document? Names are not subject to copyright protection, and not everyone has the money or inclination to trademark his or her name. I'm not crazy about drawing any more extra-copyright concepts into the license than I have to. -- G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. pgpjZtKnzAaNc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Endorsements (was Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: >On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: >> Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the >> endorsements separately from the rest of the document? > >Names are not subject to copyright protection, and not everyone has the >money or inclination to trademark his or her name. True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures? Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and watch them go to jail PDQ >I'm not crazy about drawing any more extra-copyright concepts into the >license than I have to. - -- When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to tick you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4 muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle. Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE9DCfO+ZSKG3nWr3ARAuJLAJ9lXoNTgR2mrwVQGDOtoWVOuQrG9gCfd/8X TI6iPb9nir3U5t9XUI93h7Q= =eLvU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Endorsements (was Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures? > Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and > watch them go to jail PDQ No, the point about electronic signatures is that the only one who *can* apply them to anything is the one who is in possession of the secret key. Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be, and watch them fail. -- Henning Makholm "These are a nasty breed. They sting you without waiting to be insulted first." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Endorsements (was Re: GPL compatibility of DFCL)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17 Jun 2002, Henning Makholm wrote: >Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures? >> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and >> watch them go to jail PDQ > >No, the point about electronic signatures is that the only one who >*can* apply them to anything is the one who is in possession of the >secret key. > >Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be, >and watch them fail. Oh, you mean that the price of forgery is both failure AND jail? Whatever shall we do?! My point is if you make endorsements legaslly binding cryptographic signatures, then the endorsement CANNOT be attached by anyone other than the endorser. Furthermore, since they're doing nothing but attesting the veracity of the work, they're not in any way shape or form preventing copying or modification. The only thing is that if the checksum changes, one would logically need to re-sign the work in order for the signature to remain valid, and modification of a signature in order for it to imply signing something that the signer didn't sign is VERY illegal. That is, we'd have exactly what the endorsements page was designed for--the following people attest that this copy is a true copy. - -- Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer: "My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that." Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE9DoYr+ZSKG3nWr3ARAjVKAJ9b15WeKAG2BRVZCDnURefxR7NPdQCgiiWX sWkRlQdWyrDS8jr4Y/QnTwY= =ZSUK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
