martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I stumbled over this statement in an email from the KDE team to
> -vote:
>
> > For the record, relicensing most of our documentation will be
> > impossible.
Not a can-do attitude.
> > There are several people with stated objections to using
> >
martin f krafft wrote:
> I am curious: what happens to his/her copyrights when a person dies,
> specifically wrt licence choice. Do people just assume that the
> deceased didn't ever want to change the licence?
When an author dies, the copyrights are inherited just like his
other property. So you
On 1/13/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am curious: what happens to his/her copyrights when a person dies,
> specifically wrt licence choice. Do people just assume that the
> deceased didn't ever want to change the licence?
The copyright vests in the legal representatives for th
I stumbled over this statement in an email from the KDE team to
-vote:
> For the record, relicensing most of our documentation will be
> impossible. There are several people with stated objections to using
> the GPL for documentation, many people we have no way of contacting,
> and a coupl
On 1/10/06, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad
> > to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people
> > at FSF & CC regularly, I would be more than happy to bring Debian
> > concerns to both gr
> That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad
> to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people
> at FSF & CC regularly, I would be more than happy to bring Debian
> concerns to both groups in a, hopefuly, productive fashion.If
> there's a desire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm
> also working with Wikipedia, CC, & FSF on licensing issues. I'm an
> academic scientist. I run a 70 processor cluster (Debian stable &
> OpenSSI.) I do synthetic biology. I work on Personal Genomics; my
> mentor's article about the work is the cover story for
On 1/7/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've already talked to CC and they agreed to fix their licenses; 3.0
> and later should be fine, when they're released (2.x never will be).
>
Well - it's a goal for CC & FSF to permit content to move freely
between CC-BY-SA and GFDL (or possi
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Alexander (Sasha) Wait wrote:
> I hate proprietary academic publishing, so,
> I'd like to see a "pipeline" from Academic Wikis to Academic Journals
> to Wikipedia. That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
> It's really sad to see blood boil
On 1/5/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> > I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> > the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
>
> It's reasona
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:08:23PM +0100,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> > I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> > the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
>
> Not if you want it to be part of Debian.
It still
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > It saves *so* much trouble.
>
> But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:17:24PM -0500,
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that licensing the
> documentation under the exact same license as the program was always
> the right thing to do.
I agree.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Also,
>> (4) How can this be fixed?
>
> This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
> should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
> GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: "License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (2.1) Invariant Sections
>
> The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
> that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
> in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
> DFSG, which states:
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
