[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> - then I decided to [restrict] my projects repositories as database
> (collection) in addition to the standard way to [restrict] the code with
> a well-known license
I absolutely reject using the word "protect" to describe what copyright does.
> - fair use cannot include {business, commercial, marketing} rights in
> any way
My understanding is that it sometimes does permit commercial use of
material, but mostly it does not. Fair use depends on the purpose of
the use. If the work is published commercially for education, for
instance, it might be fair use.
> A/L/GPLv4 is an update in which it will clearly state that the license
> applies to the composition and the {business, commercial, marketing}
> rights are reserved and exchanged for freedom.
I cannot concretely understand "the XYZ rights are reserved and
exchanged for freedom." Are you proposing a substantive change in
what people can do with a GPL-covered work, or an implementation
change intended to result in roughly the same permissions as now?
> Then the license
> presents a "fair use" open definition in which some rights {testing,
> learning} are clearly included. Everything else should be brought back
> in these two categories.
I don't understand "brought back in these two categories".
> So, in the most simple case in which no any file report a specific
> copyright note/header but just the repository, then this happens:
> - git repository A is licensed with A/GPLv4
> - the composition is under A/GPLv4
> - every file is under A/GPLv3
I think that is true already.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
