Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-05 Thread Steve Litt 
al3xu5 said on Sat, 4 Sep 2021 17:36:45 +0200


>The discussion was not general, but specific about which license to
>choose for a technical document written by an author (Steve).

It was written by a lot more people than me. I simply curated all the
contributions, and yes, I did write some of it myself.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread o1bigtenor via Dng 
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM al3xu5  wrote:

> Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:44:21 -0500 - o1bigtenor via Dng :
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have
> > > > >the financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.
> > >
> > > Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or
> > > individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT,
> > > Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources
> > > to pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these
> > > licenses) they do it for them.
> > >
> > > In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that
> > > tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that
> > > you can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to
> > > indicate the author and you don't have to change the content...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
> > > > project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.
> > >
> > > So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be:
> > >
> > > - GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution
> > >
> > > which states:
> > >
> > > ~~~
> > > Copyright YEAR AUTHOR
> > >
> > > Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
> > > of this entire document without royalty provided the
> > > copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved.
> > > ~~~
> > >
> > > - Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
> > >   
> > >
> > > which states:
> > >
> > > ~~~
> > > You are free to:
> > >
> > > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
> > >
> > > The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
> > > license terms.
> > >
> > > Under the following terms:
> > >
> > > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to
> > > the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
> > > reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
> > > endorses you or your use.
> > >
> >
> > I would like to register my disagreement with some parts of this concept!
> >
> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>
> al3xu5
>
>
>> --
>
> Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
>
> restrictions!
>
>
>> 
>
>
>> Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8  B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B
>
> > > NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial
> > > purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>
> al3xu5
>
>
>> --
>
> Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
>
> restrictions!
>
>
>> 
>
>
>> Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8  B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B
>
> >
> > Most everything I do here is in some shape or way related to something
> > commercial!
> > I use this or I build that or I modify this that and the next thing to
> > either make something
> > happen or build it or whatever and I do hope to make money with this
> > stuff! Its how I
> > provide for myself. Perhaps you are independently wealthy and need
> > absolutely no
> > more to live even reasonably. I need to feed my hobbies some of which may
> > have the
> > potential to feed others well likely far before they contribute to
> > feeding me! This kind
> > of statement is quite upotian and severely limits a lot of stuff imo!
> > (Please note the imo
> > at the end!!!)
> >
> > >
> > > NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the
> > > material, you may not distribute the modified material.
> > >
> >
> > If correct attribution is practiced this is another developmental
> > hinderance.
> > If I can further improve your doc/build/whatever - - - - how is that
> > 'hurting/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>
> al3xu5
>
>
>> --
>
> Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
>
> restrictions!
>
>
>> 
>
>
>> Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8  B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B
>
> > injuring' you. Now if your idea is commercial then you can say this but
> > if it
> > truly is open source why would you want to hinder someone from improving
> > your stuff. Practically - - - - - I did it all the time in the trades -
> > - - its quite
> > normal. Some cheap azzed company makes something that with some minor
> > tweaks works much better. Why wouldn't I get such done? To respect
> > someone's
> > 'ideas'? Blarney - - - - after I've bought the piece I should be allowed
> > to improve
> > it - - - always supposing that one does know something of what one is
> > doing.
> > (Companies are generally run by accountants or lawyers with the aim of
> > making
> > a profit - - - - making a quality product is most often almost

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread al3xu5 
Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:44:21 -0500 - o1bigtenor via Dng :

> [...]

> > > >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have
> > > >the financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.  
> >
> > Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or
> > individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT,
> > Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources
> > to pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these
> > licenses) they do it for them.
> >
> > In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that
> > tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that
> > you can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to
> > indicate the author and you don't have to change the content...
> >
> >  
> > > Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
> > > project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.  
> >
> > So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be:
> >
> > - GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution
> >
> > which states:
> >
> > ~~~
> > Copyright YEAR AUTHOR
> >
> > Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
> > of this entire document without royalty provided the
> > copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved.
> > ~~~
> >
> > - Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
> >   
> >
> > which states:
> >
> > ~~~
> > You are free to:
> >
> > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
> >
> > The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
> > license terms.
> >
> > Under the following terms:
> >
> > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to
> > the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
> > reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
> > endorses you or your use.
> >  
> 
> I would like to register my disagreement with some parts of this concept!
> 
> >
> > NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial
> > purposes. 
> 
> Most everything I do here is in some shape or way related to something
> commercial!
> I use this or I build that or I modify this that and the next thing to
> either make something
> happen or build it or whatever and I do hope to make money with this
> stuff! Its how I
> provide for myself. Perhaps you are independently wealthy and need
> absolutely no
> more to live even reasonably. I need to feed my hobbies some of which may
> have the
> potential to feed others well likely far before they contribute to
> feeding me! This kind
> of statement is quite upotian and severely limits a lot of stuff imo!
> (Please note the imo
> at the end!!!)
> 
> >
> > NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the
> > material, you may not distribute the modified material.
> >  
> 
> If correct attribution is practiced this is another developmental
> hinderance.
> If I can further improve your doc/build/whatever - - - - how is that
> 'hurting/
> injuring' you. Now if your idea is commercial then you can say this but
> if it
> truly is open source why would you want to hinder someone from improving
> your stuff. Practically - - - - - I did it all the time in the trades -
> - - its quite
> normal. Some cheap azzed company makes something that with some minor
> tweaks works much better. Why wouldn't I get such done? To respect
> someone's
> 'ideas'? Blarney - - - - after I've bought the piece I should be allowed
> to improve
> it - - - always supposing that one does know something of what one is
> doing.
> (Companies are generally run by accountants or lawyers with the aim of
> making
> a profit - - - - making a quality product is most often almost invisible
> on the list
> its so far down!)
> 
> >
> > No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or
> > technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
> > anything the license permits.
> > ~~~
> >
> > [...]

Maybe you have miss something here...

The discussion was not general, but specific about which license to choose
for a technical document written by an author (Steve).

The author -- who is the copyrighy owner -- wants to share his work,
letting people use it for personal purposes, and eventually sharing
it with attribution and without modifications, neither of the license nor
the document content.

Given that situation, a GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution license or
the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International seems to fit the author requirements (he
is the author, he decide how to license its work).

For example and more clarification, in *this given situation* the CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0 International seems to be good as:
BY: means people must cite the author when share the work with others
NC: means people must use and/or share the author's work only for personal
(i.e.

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread o1bigtenor via Dng 
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM al3xu5  wrote:

> Sat, 4 Sep 2021 04:14:12 -0400 - Steve Litt :
>
> > goli...@devuan.org said on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:18:43 -0500
> >
> > >Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan
> > >trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and
> > >written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt.
> > >
> > >My .02 . . .
> > >
> > >Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through
> > >Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is
> > >even considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne.
>
> Just to clarify and avoid misunderstandings:
>
> - I know there are trademarks etc.
>
> - My proposal for one "DNG Verbatim Libre License" was, precisely, just a
> proposal...
>
> - I made the proposal saying "I suggest sometihing like"... So, the
>   proposed text was a "sample", where terms like "DNG" or "Devuan" and the
>   content text were, in fact, to be discuss (in case you were interested
>   in doing so)
>
> [...]
>
>
> > >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the
> > >financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.
>
> Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or
> individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT,
> Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources to
> pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these
> licenses) they do it for them.
>
> In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that
> tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that you
> can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to indicate
> the author and you don't have to change the content...
>
>
> > Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
> > project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.
>
> So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be:
>
> - GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution
>
> which states:
>
> ~~~
> Copyright YEAR AUTHOR
>
> Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
> of this entire document without royalty provided the
> copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved.
> ~~~
>
> - Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
>   
>
> which states:
>
> ~~~
> You are free to:
>
> Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
>
> The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
> license terms.
>
> Under the following terms:
>
> Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
> license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
> reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
> endorses you or your use.
>

I would like to register my disagreement with some parts of this concept!

>
> NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
>

Most everything I do here is in some shape or way related to something
commercial!
I use this or I build that or I modify this that and the next thing to
either make something
happen or build it or whatever and I do hope to make money with this stuff!
Its how I
provide for myself. Perhaps you are independently wealthy and need
absolutely no
more to live even reasonably. I need to feed my hobbies some of which may
have the
potential to feed others well likely far before they contribute to feeding
me! This kind
of statement is quite upotian and severely limits a lot of stuff imo!
(Please note the imo
at the end!!!)

>
> NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,
> you may not distribute the modified material.
>

If correct attribution is practiced this is another developmental
hinderance.
If I can further improve your doc/build/whatever - - - - how is that
'hurting/
injuring' you. Now if your idea is commercial then you can say this but if
it
truly is open source why would you want to hinder someone from improving
your stuff. Practically - - - - - I did it all the time in the trades - - -
its quite
normal. Some cheap azzed company makes something that with some minor
tweaks works much better. Why wouldn't I get such done? To respect
someone's
'ideas'? Blarney - - - - after I've bought the piece I should be allowed to
improve
it - - - always supposing that one does know something of what one is
doing.
(Companies are generally run by accountants or lawyers with the aim of
making
a profit - - - - making a quality product is most often almost invisible on
the list
its so far down!)

>
> No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or
> technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
> anything the license permits.
> ~~~
>
> or any other similar verbatim license.
>
>
> > >Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine
> >

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread al3xu5 
Sat, 4 Sep 2021 04:14:12 -0400 - Steve Litt :

> goli...@devuan.org said on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:18:43 -0500
> 
> >Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan 
> >trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and 
> >written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt.
> >
> >My .02 . . .
> >
> >Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through 
> >Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is
> >even considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne.

Just to clarify and avoid misunderstandings:

- I know there are trademarks etc.

- My proposal for one "DNG Verbatim Libre License" was, precisely, just a
proposal... 

- I made the proposal saying "I suggest sometihing like"... So, the
  proposed text was a "sample", where terms like "DNG" or "Devuan" and the
  content text were, in fact, to be discuss (in case you were interested
  in doing so)

[...]


> >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the 
> >financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.

Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or
individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT,
Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources to
pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these
licenses) they do it for them.

In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that
tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that you
can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to indicate
the author and you don't have to change the content... 


> Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
> project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.

So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be:

- GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution

which states:

~~~
Copyright YEAR AUTHOR

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
of this entire document without royalty provided the
copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved.
~~~

- Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
  

which states:

~~~
You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
endorses you or your use.

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,
you may not distribute the modified material.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or
technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
anything the license permits.
~~~

or any other similar verbatim license.


> >Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine 
> >preservation.  
> 
> :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  


Indeed :-)

But even a paper papyrus would not be bad. It also resists 5000+ years ...

A CDROM that resists 50 years is already a miracle; And even if it were,
in 50 years it will be difficult to even find a reader ...

Someone today can read a 5 1/4 floppy? 


Regards
al3xu5

-- 
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
restrictions!


Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8  B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B


pgpZTmdKomqEi.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread aitor 

On 3/9/21 18:18, goli...@devuan.org wrote:
Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine 
preservation. 
There is no getting around the fact that the emergence of digital books 
left us somewhat nostalgic of the feel of the paper,
in the same way as, many centuries ago, the emergence of the parchment 
left our ancestors remembering with nostalgia the pleasant silky-stony 
feel ;~)


Aitor.


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-04 Thread Steve Litt 
goli...@devuan.org said on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:18:43 -0500

>Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan 
>trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and 
>written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt.
>
>My .02 . . .
>
>Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through 
>Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is
>even considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne.

Thanks for reminding me now, rather than after we have sweat equity in
the name.

This documentation project's only relationship to Devuan, DNG, whatever
is it happened to start there, but it's applicable everywhere. So we'll
just come up with a new name that correctly portrays the situation.

Thanks for your timely reminder.

>
>And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the 
>financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.

Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.

>
>Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine 
>preservation.

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  


SteveT

Steve Litt 
Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-03 Thread golinux 
Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan 
trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and 
written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt.


My .02 . . .

Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through 
Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is even 
considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne.


And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the 
financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.


Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine 
preservation.


golinux

On 2021-09-03 03:46, al3xu5 wrote:

Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:33:31 +0200 - al3xu5 :

[...]

But nothing prevents us from using a different verbatim license, 
perhaps

more articulated and specific ...

Maybe even a specially created verbatim license!

I suggest something like:



I forgot ... The license text should be available online, and the URI
referenced in the text...

It would be like:

~~~
DNG Verbatim Libre License
Version 1.0, 1 September 2021

Copyright  2021  DNG


This License document is released under the following terms and 
conditions

of the DNG Verbatim Libre License itself.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work are permitted
worldwide except for commercial purposes, without royalty, in any 
medium,
ensuring content source full availability and exclusive use of 
completely
open and patent-free formats when using any digital medium, provided 
this

notice is preserved. Any strictly personal use is not subject to any
limitation.

ADDENDUM

To apply this License to your works, insert a verbatim copy of the 
License

itself with it, and also add to it the following copyright and license
notices:

  Copyright
  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work is permitted 
under
  the terms and conditions of the DNG Verbatim Libre License, Version 
1.0.

  The full text of the License is available at:
  

End of DNG Verbatim Libre License text.
~~~


Regards
al3xu5








___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] License for the DNG created software guide --> Proposal: DNG Verbatim Libre License (upd)

2021-09-03 Thread al3xu5 
Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:33:31 +0200 - al3xu5 :

[...]

> But nothing prevents us from using a different verbatim license, perhaps
> more articulated and specific ...
> 
> Maybe even a specially created verbatim license!
> 
> I suggest sometihing like: 


I forgot ... The license text should be available online, and the URI
referenced in the text...

It would be like: 

~~~
DNG Verbatim Libre License
Version 1.0, 1 September 2021

Copyright  2021  DNG


This License document is released under the following terms and conditions
of the DNG Verbatim Libre License itself.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work are permitted
worldwide except for commercial purposes, without royalty, in any medium,
ensuring content source full availability and exclusive use of completely
open and patent-free formats when using any digital medium, provided this
notice is preserved. Any strictly personal use is not subject to any
limitation.

ADDENDUM

To apply this License to your works, insert a verbatim copy of the License 
itself with it, and also add to it the following copyright and license
notices:

  Copyright
  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work is permitted under
  the terms and conditions of the DNG Verbatim Libre License, Version 1.0.
  The full text of the License is available at:
  

End of DNG Verbatim Libre License text.
~~~


Regards
al3xu5

-- 
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
restrictions!


Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8  B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B


pgpLTxM44oCiH.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng