On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:26:51PM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
(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
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
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:07:47AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
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
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
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alright, then please help me understand. What exactly are the references
that you feel the license should permit, but the current wording doesn't?
I think it'd be reasonable for an author to require that his name be
purged from the list of
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
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
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using
the GPL for documentation.
They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The
GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite
flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don't
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
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
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:
(*)
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 this
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?
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
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
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 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 like
Lessig? There *has* to be room for more than just Ray
16 matches
Mail list logo
