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" di
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:47:49PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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/
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:40:07PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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".
For reference, "fair dealing" mostly just means
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:24:45PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Can I write my own license that says "any law or regulation that I don't
> like shall not apply to this license"?
Yes.
> Would it mean that I magically nuke laws as I like?
Not likely, no. Laws that restrict the ways people can wr
$B$O$8$a$^$7$F!#;[EMAIL PROTECTED]<%k$7$F$_$^$7$?!#(B
$B%a!<%k$NNX7G<(HD$K=q$$$F$"$C$?$3$H$C$FK\Ev$G$9$+!)(B
$B;d$O;TFb$NIB1!$G0eNE;vL3$r$d$C$F$^$7$F!D(B
$B$"$J$?$N=q$-9~$_$r$r8+$F!";E;v=*$o$j$H$+(B
$BET9g$D$-$d$9$$$+$J$!!A(B?(o^-^o)$B$H;W$C$F%a!<%k$7$?$s$G$9$,(B
$B%9%1%8%e!<%k$C$F$I$&
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 thre
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
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 lik
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 authorsh
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] This concept is pretty easy to grasp. You can add
> restrictions, unless there is an SA in the license. You can not remove
> restrictions.
Presumably one cannot add to a ND licence either?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
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 j
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 pull
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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".
Under English law, I'm only allowed to say "Daniel wr
Hello,
I'd like to get a debian-legal opinion on a potential issue with the
kdeartwork package. debian-legal was CCed
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/10/msg00235.html) on an earlier
discussion of the problem problem by Ben Burton, but didn't receive much
feedback from this list. Thu
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
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. F
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:49:12 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons
> Attribution license, used for our work:
Are you, as a copyright holder, considering to use a CC license?
I would recommend you to choose a clearly DFSG-free and urge your
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:28:02 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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.
I'm afraid you are right... :
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:21:57 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> The Source Code for any
> version of Licensed Product or Modifications that you distribute must
> remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it
> initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a
>
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:35:27 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> (Note: I haven't looked over the v2.0 license in any detail yet. The
> above is assuming that nothing significant has changed. So though I
> doubt it, I can't say for certain that there aren't other issues in
> the v2 license.)
Evan Pro
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * The requirement to maintain a LEGAL file.
> I don't think this one is really a problem; it's similar to the GPL
> saying you must mark your modifications as such.
This LEGAL file doesn't seem to say that we have to leave the
contents we got untouch
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
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
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> LICENSE CLARIFICATION
> [...]
> (*) 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 th
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:44:57PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
> > could you please link me to a FAQ about legal concerns which could come
> > up when using the GPL?
>
> I think you are looking for
> http://gnu.hands.com/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
> or maybe a nearby que
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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:
(*
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 ed
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:01:36PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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 "clarificati
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-
Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 Ã 10:01 -0800, Josh Triplett a Ãcrit :
> The issues I see related to Freeness are:
>
> * The requirement to keep source code available for 12 months, even if
> you are no longer distributing the binary, and even if you distributed
> the source code along with the binary.
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> BitTorrent 4.0 is distributed under a new license of its own.
>
> Section 6 of the preamble states:
> 6. If you sublicense the Licensed Product or Derivative Works, you
> may charge fees for warranty or support, or for accepting indemnity or
> liability obligations to
Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 10:26 -0600, Christofer C. Bell a écrit :
> The license also seems to contradict itself here:
>
> > 1. You may use, sell or give away the Licensed Product, alone or as a
> > component of
> > an aggregate software distribution containing programs from
>
Philipp Kern wrote:
> could you please link me to a FAQ about legal concerns which could come
> up when using the GPL?
I think you are looking for
http://gnu.hands.com/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
or maybe a nearby question. About OpenSSL, see
http://gnu.hands.com/licenses/license-list.h
Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear Debian legal people,
>
> could you please link me to a FAQ about legal concerns which could
> come up when using the GPL?
The canonical answer is the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
> Concretely I want to ask against which kind of
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:21:57 +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BitTorrent 4.0 is distributed under a new license of its own.
>
> Section 6 of the preamble states:
> 6. If you sublicense the Licensed Product or Derivative Works, you
> may charge fees for warranty or support,
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:40:09 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on -vote:
>
> > This is partly a problem with debian-legal documentation, but some
> > of the stuff you do is listed as "don't do this" in the list code of
> > conduct.
>
> There is a
Dear Debian legal people,
could you please link me to a FAQ about legal concerns which could come
up when using the GPL?
Concretely I want to ask against which kind of licenses libraries a GPL
program could link. I know that there are some problems with GPL'ed
projects and the linking with Open
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
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
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious?
Just indicate, preferably via text rather than page design, that the
last bit isn't part of the license (i.e., not something the licensor
requires of the licensees) but just a disclaimer for the
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Thanks for the direct link. A lot of folks prefer the actual text to be
posted as well, t
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 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 h
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 trivia
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050308 21:01]:
> What has that to do with it ? The fact that dubious tests are used, and that
> they can be used to reach wrong or not based-ont-the-DFSG decisions has
> nothing to do with freedom or not freedom. And claiming that a consensus has
> been reached wi
BitTorrent 4.0 is distributed under a new license of its own.
Section 6 of the preamble states:
6. If you sublicense the Licensed Product or Derivative Works, you
may charge fees for warranty or support, or for accepting indemnity or
liability obligations to your customers. You cannot charge
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/dl
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on -vote:
> This is partly a problem with debian-legal documentation, but some
> of the stuff you do is listed as "don't do this" in the list code of
> conduct.
There is a code of conduct specifically for debian-legal? Never heard
of it, and I've been subscribed t
49 matches
Mail list logo
