On Jul 22, 2004, at 19:42, Evan Prodromou wrote:
I'm also confused by the moral rights issue. Under a moral rights
regime, does an author have the right to have any reference to
themselves removed from works?
No idea, but at least in the US, the name of the author is _required_
as part of a
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:32:52 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > (Whether or not this is an issue with using the GPL for manuals, I
> > have no idea.)
>
> It isn't a big deal: you can just stick a CD with the source of the
> manual in the back (
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's critical that I have permission to sell hardcopies of manuals;
> the lack of Debian infrastructure for that doesn't make it any less
> important.
>
> (Whether or not this is an issue with using the GPL for manuals, I have
> no idea.)
It isn
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:53:25AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:13:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
> > "Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
> > which are often dist
Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for
distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian.
Well, sometimes we do that T-shirt thing.
We *sell* those :P
/me starts drafting a GR
~ESP
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:59:45PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >>However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
> >>"Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
> >>which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-r
Andrew Suffield wrote:
However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
"Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-readable
(see Francesco's message).
This is a non-issue. It's also silly. The
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:13:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of
> "Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs
> which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-readable
> (see Francesco's message
* Andrew Suffield:
> All of which is belied by the fact that the GPL contains a very
> careful definition of "Program" which has obviously been crafted to
> apply to any literary work.
The definition of "Program" in the GPL is about as precise as the
definition of "Point" in Euclidean Geometry.
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the
> upstream author doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedom.
>
> I'm also confused by the moral rights issue. Under a moral rights
> regime, does an author have the right to have any ref
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I fail to see how this is a "grievous restriction" because
>> common courtesy already tells us to honor such requests..
>
> Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the upstream
> author doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedo
Florian Weimer wrote:
In software documentation, an original author could require that
changelogs or discussion of differences in design or implementation
("Original Author had it this way; the new version does it this other
way") be removed.
Replacing "Evan Prodromou" with "Original Author" w
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:26:52 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > If you're selling the hard copies then you can probably afford to
> > > include a CD.
> >
> > I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that also
> > include CD production, but I could be wrong.
>
> Keep in mind that
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield:
>
> >> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
> >> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
> >> issue.
> >
> > I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be
On 2004-07-21 11:10:33 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Andrew Suffield:
I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
programs?
The license itself mentions "program" several times, the FSF writes on
Actually, it usually mentions "Program" many times, w
* Evan Prodromou:
> The classic example here is an autobiographical work. The author could
> ask that all references to herself be removed from a derivative work
> critical of her.
Such claims are usually not based on copyright. As I tried to
explain, the CC clause which is considered non-free w
* Andrew Suffield:
>> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
>> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
>> issue.
>
> I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
> programs?
The license itself mentions "program" severa
Florian Weimer wrote:
How? As MJ said, it's clearly "practical" to remove the author's
name in places where it would nevertheless be a grievous
restriction.
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
ho
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:37:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work,
> >> or to broadcast it.
> >
> > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the
> > GNU GPL?
>
> The GPL was designed to be applied
On 2004-07-20 10:15:11 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
honored, practically speaking?
I believe it should, if that mention of his name was essent
* Nathanael Nerode:
>> Oh, come on. We still can declare a document non-free if an author
>> tries to exercise his rights in an unacceptable way.
>
> This is not a viable interpretation. A freely licensed work must
> give a reasonable guarantee that the work will *remain* freely
> licensed. A w
* Branden Robinson:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> > work is not allowed, since those
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:50:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, I used to think that myself, until Steve Langasek and Henning Makholm
> argued me to exhaustion. :)
>
> Debian interprets "this License" and "herein" to mean the conditions of
> the GNU GPL expressed in its text; no mor
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> > To me it seems potentially useful to release licensees from those
> > requirements.
>
> I agree, but at the same time, Branden explicitly forbids to
> re-introduce these requirements, creating the GPL com
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:27:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
>> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>>
>> Consider the author's name outside
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
>> removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
>
> Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
>
On 2004-07-12 14:42:39 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I fail to see how this clause is troublesome. What's wrong with
removing the names of authors upon request, as long as it practicable?
Consider the author's name outside any attributions, such as in a
factual history. Cle
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
>> Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
>
> ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
> you mean BY-SA? T
On 2004-07-12 13:42:36 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed because it doesn't exist! Maybe
you mean BY-SA? That shares the troubl
* MJ Ray:
> On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
>
> ...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment,
Why do you think so? ShareAlike 2.0 hasn't been reviewed so far.
On 2004-07-12 13:27:53 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts?
...because CC*SA is not DFSG-free at the moment, which I think might
be Branden's aim.
I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never at
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Branden Robinson:
>
> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> > work; see se
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
>
> I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
> usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
> could be left out, and kept
* Branden Robinson:
> In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
> requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
> work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
> work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another w
On 2004-07-12 09:30:26 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend
it for
usage more broadly. [...]
Confusing but probably consistent. I wouldn't be happy recommending
thi
Hi guys,
I'm currently using the following license statement on the Debian X FAQ[1].
I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they
could be left out
39 matches
Mail list logo
