[cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
B. Jean
veille.jus at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 09:34:13 EDT 2007
I'm going to start by the end :-) :
> and another point: documentation for free software, in my opinion,
> should consider being in the same license as the software itself...this
> eases implementation for programmers
>
I agree. In fact, documentation can be considered as part of the
software by many jurisdiction.
adam hyde a écrit :
> cool...nice points :)
>
Which one ?
>>>
>> By using the license of you own choice, you avoid any confusion. You
>> speak about compatibilité : the GPL is also incompatible with all other
>> licenses (in fact, there are an exception since the last update)...
>>
>
> which is why I suggested that CC would have been better to just make the
> cc-gpl wrapper and stop there
>
Why does one person would think for billion's ? My thinking is that
diversity is proof of liberty.
>> About the weakness of the GPL about free content, you can read the
>> Rosen's Book about "Open Source Licensing " [1] .
That was important.
What is following, wasn't ^^
>> Your very strong :
>> providing a link entitled " why not use GPL for Manuals " to use GPL...
>> for manuals ! :-)
>> But I see what you mind.
>>
>
> the link to the " why not use GPL for Manuals " shows that the FDL is
> designed to protect business models of publishers...as stallman further
> states:
> "At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
> they are interested in using this license."
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-gfdl.html
>
> doesn't seem to me the license is focused on free as in 'libre'
>
> the second link was to show the gpl _can_ be used for documentation.
> which is my prefered choice because of the issues with the rationale of
> the fdl
>
I know that, as well as I know Debian attitude. However, the license is
unadapted for these sorts of works (by example, you don't have right to
publish the content on tv or website — useless for software... It's
real, you can have look : right to use, to copy, to adapt, modify, to
distribute the copy, etc. ; but not to represent) . By the way, note
that the GPL v3 is broader than the v2 ; consequently, theses critics
would disappear
>> By the SFDL, I mean the Simple Free D.. L.., an other draft you can find
>> one the draft's website [2] ; which would certainly be the best GNU
>> license for content.
>>
>
> i dont think so (see earlier email)
>
I agree ; but yet better than the FDL ...
Regards,
Ben
>
>> Finally, some other licenses for contents are available : like the Free
>> Art License. This one might be compatible with the CC-By-SA in its
>> earlier version (1.3, still not translated).
>>
>> Of course, do as you want, but knowingly these critics.
>>
>
> adam
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Ben
>>
>> [1] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
>> [2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-dd1.txt
>> [3] http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
>>
>>> The GPL is 1 license, and can be applied to non-software:
>>> "any work of any nature that can be copyrighted can be copylefted with
>>> the GNU GPL."
>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
>>>
>>> I wish the CC would have made the CC-GPL wrapper and stopped there. It would have made the world a much better place for freedom of content.
>>>
>>> As for the FDL. It is not a free license, and the FSF should drop it. I
>>> can't believe they get away with saying it is 'free' when it has clauses
>>> intended to protect publishers form losing their publishing business
>>> model.:
>>> "Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
>>> make a profit from selling copies"
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
>>>
>>> Also, if someone can explain to me what the difference is between
>>> documentation and software I will buy them that elusive free beer.
>>>
>>> adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 12:46 +0200, B. Jean wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> adam hyde a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just modified the CC-GPL wrapper a bit to make it easier to read, and
>>>>> also to use it for applying to documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone has time to look at it I would appreciate any comments about
>>>>> its wording and if I have left out anything critical:
>>>>> http://en.flossmanuals.net/license
>>>>>
>>>>> adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Just a question : what's the reason for using GNU GPL on documentary
>>>> works ? This well-known license is excellent for software, but unadapted
>>>> for other works, like books or manuals. For exemple, the GNU GPL v2 do
>>>> not speak about " representing " the work : thereby, you can copy the
>>>> work, but you are not allowed to represent it...
>>>> Some other licenses, like the CC-By-SA or the next GNU SFDL, are written
>>>> consequently and would be more appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list