On Jan 20, 2008 11:38 PM, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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...
It probably has nothing to do with the GPL. It's just questions about
copyright in general. I hadn't realized that many of their questions
did not actually involve doing
sage: foo?
or
sage: foo??
I now understand what you meant that these are just generic copyright
questions that should easily be covered under "fair use".
Thanks for the clarification (and for protecting me from the trolls
and flame bait!).
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
