On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for
> an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a
> possible lawsuit.
Licenses *are* confusing. Not our fault, nor can we do anything about
i
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
>> with "program" replaced by "text", "object code" by "typeset form", and
>> with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
> ...
>
> This isn't really the right forum for that.
Well, hm, yes, no. Indeed the case that made me post this questi
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
Yes, it would, but I can't find details of a licensing forum on
their pages. Where is it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a non-public enquiry service, as far as I can tell.
It does not seem to publish performance statis
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
> with "program" replaced by "text", "object code" by "typeset form", and
> with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
It would be possible (
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
...
This isn't really the right forum for that.
Maybe the fsf licensing forum would be better?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems
>> clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a
>> text under GPL.
>>
>> But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just con
Frank Küster wrote:
> I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems
> clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a
> text under GPL.
>
> But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for
> an author who considers GPL for his te
Thank you, Andrew, Michael, MJ and Raul for your comments.
I was asking this question because I got involved in a license
discussion with an author who published a preliminary version of a
document on a "preliminary" licsense, the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0.
Durin
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
>> didn't find it in the archives.
>
> Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first?
I didn't find it helpful
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the
>creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation.
Literally 'no', but more practically 'kinda'.
More precisely, there is a *vast* amoun
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:56:25 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary
> > somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I
> > have
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:56:25PM -0500, I wrote:
> The Berne Convention does not appear to use the term "derivative"
> at all. The only place I can find that uses related worde
> (derived, and collection) is Article 14 and 14ter, in reference
> to ("derived") cinematographic production based on
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary
> somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I
> have seen are consistent with the interpretation that "compilations"
> (or the subset "
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD, I haven't been actively engaged with
debian-legal for very long, and my interpretation of the meaning of
"derivative work" and its consequences for the scope of the GPL
appears to contrast rather strongly with the FSF's and with some other
debian-legal participants'. Bu
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
> didn't find it in the archives.
Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first?
I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service
wil
Hi,
please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
didn't find it in the archives.
Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not
part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort),
is licensed under GPL, with an additional text s
17 matches
Mail list logo
