On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 05:46:14PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > > > b) Non-technical documents. > > I listed the following: > > > > 1. Trademarks, Copyrights > > I'm playing devil's advocate here, I admit. But why shouldn't copyright's > be free? I mean, obviously I can't change the copyright under which you > place your piece of work. But, if I want to put some unrelated work of > mine under a copyright, and I choose to invent a new copyright (license) > of my own, which I derive from the one you use, why should this upset > you?
The problem is not within the legal text, but in the preamble and the complete "outfit". Imagine 200 different GPL's exist, all looking very similar, only one word or to changed or added here and there. This would be indeed very bad for Debian, has we had to look very carefull if the meaning has changed and if the license is still compatible. I'll forward a mail by RMS on this topic on the policy list after I finished this mail. He says that you can copy the legal text, but the GPL as a whole (with preamble and so on) is not modificable. I find this reasonable. > For example, you included in your first email a copyright based on the > GPL. A derivative work of the GPL, in fact. According to the GPL's > copyright, you have just broken the law. This strikes me as a little > odd. No, I don't think I broke the law. I only copied the legal text, not the framework (I was careful to do so). I also didn't referred to the fact that it is derived from the GPL (in the document itself), and this both makes it identificable (nobody could take it for the GPL). > > 2. Personal opinions, email quotes > > 3. essays, graphic novels > > > > I think everybody agrees that we don't benefit from changing these, and we > > shouldn't change them. (As this would probably be a violation of the > > personality of the author). Are they only acceptable in non-free (as Jules > > says), or do we allow them in main (Manoj and me)? > > > > Maybe you don't want to change them. But, before agreeing that they are > OK in main, ask yourself, 'Might I, or might one of our users, want to > create a derived work?' This is a very good question, and I'm happy that you remind me of that: > One of the advantages of main, IMHO, is that I know I can create a dervied > work from anything therein, without carefully reading the license. I > would not like to give up that right too easily... OTOH, my mind tells me that the user would prefer to get the things on the CD image, even if they are not completely free. But your point is very valid, and I think we should think hard before putting non-free stuff in main. I still think it is warranted for copyright license, emails, trademarks and a few further exceptions. If we decide to let non-free stuff in main, a prominent mark has to be used of course. > Disclaimer: I don't feel as strongly about this as I perhaps seem to. If > the body of opinion is against me, I will vote with Marcus and Manoj. But > I raise these issues for completeness.. I think your arguments are reasonable. I think Manojs arguments are reasonable, too. It may well be that this special topic is just a matter of taste. I want to hear more opinions about it. Thank you, Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
