[task #16542] Submission of Ajla

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #16542 (group administration):


> The files that don't contain copyright and license notices are generated.

Files like README don't look like generated.

> Does copyright apply to generated files?

It depends.  If I generate a tarball from Emacs sources, it will be
copyrighted by the FSF.  If I generate a file with a command like *yes | head
-n 83521 > file*, then it will not be copyrightable; however, even when some
file is public domain or uncopyrightable, it's useful to add a note clarifying
that.

> For example, I took GNU binutils, I wrote a script that extracts the
encoding of ARM64 constants and I put the result to the files arm64-w.inc and
arm64-x.inc. Who owns the copyright of these files? Me? Binutils authors?
Nobody (because a table of numbers can't be copyrighted)? Please, describe how
to properly attribute copyright in cases like this.

Generally, the derived works inherit the copyright status of the works they
are derived from.

> I intend to use the domain www.ajla-lang.cz as the primary home page of the
Ajla project.
> 
> But I also need git hosting and I would use Savannah for that - Savannah
wouldn't be mirror or backup, it would be the main git repository for Ajla
(while the WWW homepage would be www.ajla-lang.cz) - is it OK to use it this
way?

If you need just Git, you could consider using a simpler service like
repo.or.cz.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[task #16540] Submission of Republishing Public Domain Books with Lisp

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #16540 (group administration):


> The thing is that this is not just fiction, this is a proper program that is
programmed in a DSL (`#lang`) of Racket called Pollen[0]. If you were able to
get the source code, check the `pollen.rkt` file. I shall be adding a few of
those more, which would implement the typographical capacities of Pollen. So
the goal is to use the power of free software, and especially the dialect of
lisp in providing better typographical reproductions of classic literature.
Does this help in giving a better idea of the project? 

Yes, I hope so.

> The original work remains to be in the public domain, the changes that are
re-licensed according to CC-BY-SA 4.0 are the typographical and design changes
that were made in reproducing the copy/edition of the book(s). As the original
content is in public domain, it is totally feasible to make changes to it and
_relicense those changes_ accordingly.

Yes, provided the changes are copyrightable; still don't you find it
surprising when the copyright lines list persons who have little relation to
the authors?

> Particularly, the things that will be under CC-BY-SA would be the design
layout used in each format (PDF, EPUB, HTML/CSS) and the cover picture. I also
intend to add a foreword and appendix to the book, so they shall also be under
CC-BY-SA while the particular content of the book and its translation remain
safely under Public Domain.

I see.  The foreword is likely to be copyrightable, other things may or may
not.

> > I'm not sure if CC BY-SA 4.0 is technically incompatible with Savannah
hosting
> > requirements in this case, but releasing a work under confusing terms
isn't a
> > good practice.
> I am not sure which part of it is confusing,

You are going to release a work that is essentially in public domain under
different terms.

> but would like further comment. As far as GNU's compatibility goes, the
License Compatibility list from FSF[2] confirms that being  a copyleft license
it _is_ compatible with all versions of GPL as long as it is not used on
software, which I assure you it is not.

I'm really puzzled how you could interpret the entry you referred to this way.
 It clearly says CC BY-SA is incompatible with any GPL version but 3.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/