On Jan 20, 2008, at 23:22 , William Stein wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2008 11:18 PM, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 20, 2008, at 23:00 , William Stein wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 20, 2008 10:58 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Timothy Clemans >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The message that started this is >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/ >>>>> 2008_January_21#Image:Sagecontourplot.png >>>>> >>>>> If this person's is right that you can't release a screenshot >>>>> of the >>>>> Sage Notebook under a CC license then I'm worried that the Sage >>>>> documentation can't actually be licensed under CC-by-sa since it >>>>> includes code from docstrings in the GPLed Sage code. >>> >>> You can assure the people in that wikipedia conversation that it is >>> definitely >>> *not* our intention to disallow CC licensing screenshots of sage >>> that show >>> the documentation, and that I'm sure we'll be happy to work with >>> them >>> to clarify the license so that they'll be comfortable with those >>> screenshots >>> being on Wikipedia. >> >> Unless I'm reading the wiki comments in the wrong way, they are not >> concerned that "we" are disallowing the release of screenshots as CC- >> licensed. The question is *can* we release screenshots as CC- >> licensed, when the content is GPL-licensed. > > Good point. However, we own the copyright to 100% of the relevant > GPL-licensed code, so we still get to decide the question of > whether or > not we allow the screenshots. I think they wikipedia people are just > being careful and respectful of our copyright, which I greatly > appreciate. I don't get the same impression from the discussion there. I think they (actually, "belk") are asking a somewhat more general question, although it's not completely clear what their point is. They are discussing "(elements of) GPL'd software". I can't tell whether they mean - a screenshot of something that is produced by software that is licensed under GPL. - a screenshot of a batch of software (code) that is licensed under GPL; or Consider: This, regarding a shot of a display of a "3D" plot of a function: "Claimed {{GFDL-self}}, but this is a screenshot of copyrighted software. Are there enough copyrighted interface elements here to make the screenshot non-free? —Bkell (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)" and this, regarding the Sage shot, which includes Sage code (which I will guess has *no* copyright attached to it since it's just a bit of scripting to show the result [the plot itself]): "...What I am wondering here is whether this same restriction applies to screenshots of GPL software. —Bkell (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)" In any case, I think this could be an indicator of GPL licensing beginning to capsize under its own weight (which will probably have a lot of attendant collateral damage when it happens). I would be cynical, but they're making it way too difficult... Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income ----------- Nobody knows the trouble I've been ----------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
