Branden said:
So, might not the DFCL say something like:
BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENT
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 23:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Instead I think the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on all
> parts of the work that original to him. Maybe this is just section B,
> maybe it's some interstitial material as well.
ยง 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:06:10AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> IANAL, so I am not entirely sure, but...
>
> In step 2, the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on the
> _entire_ text, independently of its original copyright, not just
> on section B.
I don't believe this is true
t; > restrictions clause.
>
> As I just told Glenn Maynard, I think I refuted this argument
> in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> The GPL convertibility only applies if the DFCLed work is
> distributed as part of a separate GPLed work. Once extracted
> from its G
be,
>and watch them fail.
Oh, you mean that the price of forgery is both failure AND jail? Whatever
shall we do?! My point is if you make endorsements legaslly
binding cryptographic signatures, then the endorsement CANNOT be attached
by anyone other than the endorser. Furthermore, since
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 07:47:56PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
> > (including disabling its functionality).
>
> For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
> 2(c) of the GPL for details:
>
> c) If the modi
Scripsit John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> True enough, but what if they were legally binding electronic signatures?
> Let someone try to attach a signature where it wasn't supposed to be and
> watch them go to jail PDQ
No, the point about electronic signatures is that the only one who
*can*
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If evil.c is under the GPL, then it can be modified for any purpose
> (including disabling its functionality).
For most purposes, yes, but not for *any* purpose. See section
2(c) of the GPL for details:
c) If the modified program normally reads com
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 20:08, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> It'd be a bit more complicated. Say you have some dvd reading code
> whose license says that so long as it's used in conjunction with the
> functions in evil.c (which is GPL'd) the resultant work can be
> distributed under the GPL. But if you r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I had a hypothetical all ready that would show how someone could use
>> the sort of tunneling you were talking about to tie malicious code
>> (e.g., spyware, or copy-right checking cod
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I had a hypothetical all ready that would show how someone could use
> the sort of tunneling you were talking about to tie malicious code
> (e.g., spyware, or copy-right checking code) to something else and
> claim the result was GPL
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, might not the DFCL say something like:
>
> BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
> PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
> MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>> Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the
>> endorsements separately from the rest of the do
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 05:51:23PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the
> endorsements separately from the rest of the document?
Names are not subject to copyright protection, and not everyone has the
money or inclination t
Wouldn't the endorsements issue be best resolved by licensing the
endorsements separately from the rest of the document? i.e. the core
content could be under the DFCL (unambiguously free & GPL compatible)
while endorsements, odes to pets, etc. would be under a separate
license of the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 12:34:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> This is entirely possible. It might be worth considering whether:
>
> 1. The endorsements clause be made a part of the license and/or
> copyright notice.
>
> 2. All endorsements be required to be stripped wh
s
> > > > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
> > >
> > > If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't care what the license
> > > says. Heck, I wouldn't mind the GFDL as long as I could just convert
> > > it to the GPL.
> &
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
> >
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:08:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Would people add these to the copyright notice, like they add
> exceptions to link with OpenSSL today? If so, I guess those
> could always be trimmed, too.
The names of endorsers would be listed in the copyright notice, yes.
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 01:05 , Branden Robinson wrote:
Here are my current thoughts on Endorsements:
Well, this'll teach me to read all my mail before responding...
I think I misunderstood the top of your last post.
3) [...] Endorsers may wish to communicate to the world (
The GPL convertibility only applies if the DFCLed work is distributed as
part of a separate GPLed work. Once extracted from its GPLed housing,
the endorsements clause reasserts itself because the GPL cannot *remove*
the copyright or the license on another work.
> However, and approach that could be
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:58:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Er, but what prevents you from taking a DFCL-licensed work, converting
> it to the GPL and leaving it in a data file? I don't see how you can
> allow conversion to the GPL, without letting people do anything with it
> the GPL allows
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:55:51PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 03:22 , Mark Rafn wrote:
> >Actually, I guess I should be disallowed from adding anyone to the
> >endorsement list without their permission. Can the license prevent me
> >from adding a name to the
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:22PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> > would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
>
> If I can convert it to the GPL, then I don't care what the
On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 03:22 , Mark Rafn wrote:
Also, is there a more general term to use than "endorsements"?
I've been
known to write things I don't actually endorse, but still want my
authorship known. I'd prefer "attributions" or "cont
al restrictions
clause.
However, and approach that could be taken --- and I'm sorry if
I've misunderstood you --- is to require this in exchange for
additional rights. Something like:
If you include the endorsements section, the copyright holders
will, at your option,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Calling this a part of the copyright notice doesn't make it so. That
> makes it GPL incompatible, because you have to preserve more than what
> the GPL requires.
You're forgetting that the endorsement notice would become optional if
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As noted elsewhere, I'm planning on a "GPL conversion clause". This
> would permit the omission of the endorsements notice.
>
> Actually, it would only "suspend" it. The idea being that
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Calling this a part of the copyright notice doesn't make it so.
>
> Why not? It's certainly relevant to the copyright to note the existence
> of endorsements, e
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > > copyright notice, whic
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> > will not be pe
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you're confusing the statement about the endorsements with the
> > endorsements themselves.
>
> I wrote it that way because I wanted it to be a "copyrigh
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're confusing the statement about the endorsements with the
> endorsements themselves.
I wrote it that way because I wanted it to be a "copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty", not an endorsement per se.
eally want to do that?
> >
> > If the endorsements statement is considered to be a part of the
> > copyright notice, then this is not true. We should probably provide the
> > exact text in the license so that this isn't seen as a loophole.
>
> Hmm... How about t
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > > copyright notice, which mentions endor
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> > copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> > will not be permitted,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5) There will be text, in the form of a brief notice, following the
> copyright notice, which mentions endorsements. Removing that text
> will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes, this is invariant text).
You realize, of course, that
, is there a more general term to use than "endorsements"? I've been
known to write things I don't actually endorse, but still want my
authorship known. I'd prefer "attributions" or "contributors".
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1
t; FSF could mark the GNU Manifesto as such, and if someone changed that
> section, they would have to remove the FSF's name from it, or get their
> permission? This solves my problems, and is significantly more free than
> the FDL or the removal option.
Here are my current thoughts on
39 matches
Mail list logo
