br Your analysis ignores the fact that the GNU FDL does not permit
br Invariant Sections to be omitted entirely from the work when it
br is redistributed. If the GNU FDL did that, it would take a giant
br step towards DFSG-freeness.
Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is
[Disclaimer: The below are statements of general law. If
you need legal advice, see an attorney. I am licensed to
practice in the District of Columbia and no other
jurisdiction.] IAAL
Interesting thread, I'm going to step through a few points
that caught my eye--hope they may be useful
Hello James Miller,
I think I had compiled a user friendly index comparing some various
jurisdictions a couple years ago I could dig up if it's useful to you
guys.
I have also been following this discussion with interest. I'm attempting
to understand the copyright laws of the various
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:01:35AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that
technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian
Project impossible,
Pure FUD.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And now, a short clarification statement:
I was recently mentioned in a discussion on debian-legal, but the
cited emails are unpublished. I assure you that I did not claim to
speak for the Debian project or call the debian-legal list a minority
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:39:51AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
And now, a short clarification statement:
I was recently mentioned in a discussion on debian-legal, but the
cited emails are unpublished. I assure you that I did not claim to
speak for the Debian project or call the debian-legal list a
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In any event, if non-common law countries have legal frameworks that
technically render Free Software as conceived by the FSF and the Debian
Project impossible,
Pure FUD. See my rebuke of Nathanael Nerode's message that I just
sent.
I think the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:40:22AM -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 58 lines which said:
I strongly object: Great Britain and its former colonies are not the
majority of the world, whatever your criteria (number of inhabitants,
GNP, etc) are.
I strongly
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 18:59, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This appears to represent a consensus view of Debian:
* Some people believe that immutable sections are not acceptable in a free
document,
Aye.
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they
On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 23:47, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
As a final note, 'moral rights' are *not* 'copyrights', and a copyright
license should not attempt to have anything to do with them, any more than it
should have anything to do with patent rights, design rights, or trademarks!
You are
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote=20
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur
system, perhaps. =20
Under the system used in the majority of the
Georg said:
Software and documentation are quite different according to the way
they are treated by the legal system. Moral rights (on which this is
based) are seen much more strongly for documentation.
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
This is
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:47:57PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
...
Under the system used in the majority of the world,
I strongly object: Great Britain and
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:47:57PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
...
Under the
Since it has not been specifically mentioned in this discussion, I would like
to point out the following particular message from Richard Braakman:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00034.html
This appears to represent a consensus view of Debian:
* Some people
Georg said:
Yes. But that is a question of Copyright law, not license.
Given that a document is under a license that permits modification,
any redistributor could add anything and then say that removing it
would hurt his or her moral rights.
First of all, 'moral rights' don't exist in the US.
Georg, continuing to miss the point entirely, wrote:
I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
persons Copyright. GNU Free Documentation
Peter S. Galbraith said:
psg It's copied from http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
psg If that text were licensed with invariant sections, I'd have to
psg include them in this one-page help screen.
Georg said:
Right now you'd probably have to treat it as potentially invariant as
a
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
* Some people believe that immutable sections are not acceptable in a free
document,
Aye.
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they consist of non-technical material.
Woah. I don't think anyone has
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
but a majority of Debian seems to think that immutable sections are
free provided they consist of non-technical material.
Woah. I don't think anyone has said that,
Truth to be told, I recently said
Georg said:
Naturally, I'm more familiar with the European Copyright -- or Droit
d'Auteur, rather -- systems, but since Europe is a very active region
for Free Software, considering the European situation seems useful.
Please note that this system is contrary in its basis to the system in the
I have read the thead throught another list, so pse reply directly to
me.
I second Georg's statement:
I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity
of work is -except for some works- inalienable. So a license that
would require no invariant section would be unforceable.
Leonardo Boselli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity
of work is -except for some works- inalienable.
I wonder what that means in the case of a work with several authors
and no identification of who wrote (and edited) each paragraph.
So a
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
I second Georg's statement:
I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity
of work is -except for some works- inalienable. So a license that
would require no invariant section would be unforceable.
I
You know, the fact that moral rights might in the future
theoretically be an issue for free software in Europe is not an excuse
for the FSF to promulgate a license that itself has already caused
serious problems to people trying to build community commons free
documents, like that encyclopedia.
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:24, Anthony Towns wrote:
[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000624.html
The rule is that the invariant section can contain anything as
long as it is not the subject matter of the article. In
particular, the invariant section can
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:21:11PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
From its function, not its aesthetics.
The very same people who have been lumping together totally different
areas of law such as copyright, patents and
Sure, here is some text related to the Wiki debacle:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000624.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002238.html
That doesn't make the situations dissimilar, however, as there are
people complaining about not
|| On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:05:43 -0500
|| Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please tell me where that decision has been made
official?
br When the FSF released the GNU FDL 1.2, we analyzed it on the
br debian-legal mailing list. At that time, no one was willing to
br
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
differentiated approach.
Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
effects of the
Hi Georg C. F. Greve,
As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
differentiated approach.
Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
effects of the intellectual
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:50:59AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
First of all: documents and software are entirely different issues
and should be treated differently.
br The Debian Project does not, in general, appear to agree. See:
br
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:18:10 -0500
|| Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sl The perceived goal of the GPL is to establish a creative commons
sl for the mutual benefit of all in the community.
I would agree to the sentiment, but I must say that I have some issues
using the commons
At first I thought the GNU FDL was okay. And I tend to cut RMS a lot
of slack. But the more I think about it, the less I like it.
One principle of a proper free license is that it doesn't allow the
thing it is protecting to be poisoned. In the case of the GNU FDL,
despite the laudatory goals,
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 11:00, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
...
In the special case that you seem to be referring to, which is as
author of a specialized help GUI, you could of course jump to the
relevant paragraphs/parts of the documentation directly.
Um, not without the same type of intimate
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:21:11PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:18:10 -0500
|| Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sl The perceived goal of the GPL is to establish a creative commons
sl for the mutual benefit of all in the community.
I would agree to
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
From its function, not its aesthetics.
I'm not sure whether prose or software is more shortchanged by this
distinction. Both art and software are simultaneously functional and
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
A lot of prose does the same -- it's written to persuade or to explain
or to record, rather than to entertain or amaze. Conversely, substantial
amounts of software derive its justification from aesthetics and it's
Debian's opinion that computer
38 matches
Mail list logo
