Hello,
A few months ago I asked for opinions on the Public Documentation
License (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html) and I got two
interesting responses:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00236.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00260.html
In addition t
Hello all,
Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to
the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the
source code available for three years (section 3).
The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's
not practical to d
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
"noncommercial". You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to wh
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any "I agree" manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
T&C you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without T&C.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocume
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
Now many CDs
Andrew Suffield wrote:
You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.
This is also the easiest way
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I
charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.
Sure, that should be ok.
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of lapt
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says "If you want the
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2".
I wo
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok "first sale".
By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore
theft is not illegal.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
Hi all,
I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year
requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years).
Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People
buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the
GPL is to always send a seco
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of t
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference.
If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not "offering access
to copy". So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them
wouldn't count. Correct?
Daniel.
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to p
Michael Poole wrote:
I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a
checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no
additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the
situation at a conference.
At the conference I would be giving the source
Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer
case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it?
The three year offer is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't know
where I'll be in three years, and I don't want to worry about being able
to provide s
to make this sufficiently obvious? I will
relay your suggestion to the CC team. They're a nice bunch. Who knows?
They might just make the alteration.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
or
> keeping it broken that we don't know about.
Let's avoid conspiracy theories if we can :-)
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> license. If it could be made explicit that the last couple of
> paragraphs (starting with "Creative Commons is not a party to this
> license") is not part of the license itself, this issue would go away.
Ray suggested a header that says "Creative Commons Trademark License
arty to the
license.
It seems like a simple and expedient solution.
How would you feel about that?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
aft a short and simple
letter that would clarify away the problems?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> In any event, would you (Debian-legal) help me draft a short and simple
> letter that would clarify away the problems?
How's this? :
LICENSE CLARIFICATION
This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons
Attribution license, used f
hy it would be good for CC to make it clear.
It sounds like an easy change too. I'll keep bugging them about it.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nal."
But those cases are covered by Fair Use rights. You are always allowed to
say "Jeremy said ..." :) or to put someone's work (and name) on a
bibliography, or a footnote. Those are all "fair use".
Right?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it p
be accomodated.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x27;t be BY. This concept is pretty easy to grasp. You can add
restrictions, unless there is an SA in the license. You can not remove
restrictions.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To
ed at OOo is like pulling teeth. Trust me, I am in
the community council. :-)
As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for
written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOo
essig"? There *has* to be room for more than just "Ray wrote...".
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray wrote:
> Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for dual licensing, the CC-BY really is my favourite license for
> > written text. I don't want to use a software license for non-software.
>
> Well, if you want to do something inherently non-free,
.
:-(
Okay, I guess that "fair use" didn't go nearly as far as I thought.
Alright, then please help me understand. What exactly are the references
that you feel the license should permit, but the current wording doesn't?
How would you compose a clarification letter to addre
until the CC changes the license.
This would be sad, but not catastrophic. After all, this isn't Debian
documentation we're talking about. But I will still go for the CC-BY
because I think it is a step in the right direction.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want i
terms were meant as.
I gather from your post that this isn't how a clarification letter works.
:-(
Best,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__[Insert hyperlink/alias]).
Contributor(s): __.
Portions created by __ are Copyright (C)_[Insert year(s)]. All
Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):[Insert
hyperlink/alias]).
NOTE: The text of this Appendix may diffe
the GPL.
I like the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I'll ask our editor what she
thinks. After she and I talk about it, we'll bring this up to the rest of
the gang.
My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using
the GPL for documentation.
Cheers,
--
ank you for your help.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
oad the
sources from the website under the GPL/CC-BY.
Yes?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
both the GPL and CC-BY,
while making it easy for other people to meet the requirements also.
They'd only have one file to distribute to maintain attribution.
What do you guys think?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tues
ting
the CC-BY license, I can move to the new one without hassle.
Your thoughts ?
Thanks for the help.
As a sidenote, I got a response back from our "chief editor" and she likes
the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I think that the others will too.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera |
acks. The goal is
not to pick something infallible, but to pick something suitable.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of
any part receiving it.
How does that look?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want
Don Armstrong wrote:
> s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or
> whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended
> copyright statement.]
Okay. I made it "at your option". I like simple language.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera
rk; and the name of the owner of the copyright owner.
How's this:
This document is Copyright 2004 by its contributors as defined
in the section titled Authors. This document is released under
the terms ...
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OO
t I am certainly not removing any rights.
Question: I thought that the "or later" was also standard for GPL
software. Isn't it?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBS
ed that Perl
is a tried-and-true Free Software project with a dual license.
Thoughts? Comments?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t; What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3?
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you intended. You can
still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent releases GPLv2 only.
The point is, the "or later" gives you more flexibility and choice. I think
it&
my meaning. I am very
worried about sw patents, and I'm hoping that the GPLv3 will address them to
some extent.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht help me get up to speed?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I'm interested in why you think it's not.
Wow, hey. I was just asking a question. I didn't know there was an issue here.
I certainly haven't thought about it half as much as you have.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want
ude patents and signed code.
I don't know about signed code. I thought that addressing patents would be
good. (disclaimer: I'm speaking from a position of ignorance)
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oo
o something really bad with
the GPLv3 for this to be a problem.
Consider an extreme case. Suppose GPLv3 is non-free, propietary.
That means that your "GPLv2 or later" work is now dual licensed:
GPLv2/proprietary
But that is still free. It's like MySQL for example (GPL/propriet
hough I'd
> suggest "as listed", because "as defined" doesn't make sense.
Thanks. Fixed.
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
51 matches
Mail list logo
