[cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jul 26 16:14:44 EDT 2007
On Thursday 26 July 2007 01:17 pm, B. Jean wrote:
> drew Roberts a écrit :
> > Benjamin,
> > you still do not directly comment on my point that people constantly put
> > code on display on web sites via web/cvs integration.
> you're right, my apologizes !
> 1) if an owner displays his code on any website : everything is ok,
> because he don't have to ask to anybody but himself ;
Of course, if it is all original code.
> 2) if somebody else wants to display (and not only give link to download
> — that is a distribution) this code : he's doing something that the
> license didn't allow.
And this is done by many people. And according to the license, they would then
have no rights to the code anymore...
> Everybody does it, because owner and licensee both think that the GPL
> permit to act by this way. Notwithstanding, the license didn't state on
> it. That's all.
> I never said that people should not do that, but the GNU GPL v2,
> actually, do not permit it. The license is only an instrument, and we
> have to use it carefully.
I get what you are saying. Just persuing the conversation. It is just that cvs
is a means of distribution, but when you integrate it, it becomes display on
a web site.
> Yet, maybe I'm wrong somewhere, just correct me :)
I am waiting to hear myself.
Perhaps it is actually covered by 1.
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of
the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
all the best,
> > On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:44 am, B. Jean wrote:
> >> Terry Hancock a écrit :
> >>> drew Roberts wrote:
> >>>> On Monday 23 July 2007 10:32 am, B. Jean wrote:
> >>>>>> You can't put the work on a web site? People do that all the time
> >>>>>> with a web link to the cvs or other version control system. Or am I
> >>>>>> misunderstanding you big time?
> >>>>> What you can't do, is to display the code on the website.
> >>>> But this is precisely what I am saying people do all the time...
> >>>> http://zbcw.cvs.sourceforge.net/zbcw/
> >>>> http://drsoundwall.googlecode.com/svn/
> >>>> http://callweaver.org/browse
> >>>> http://filmgimp.cvs.sourceforge.net/filmgimp/
> >>>> Interesting that they don't have the right to do so. Is sourceforge
> >>>> guilty of massive contributory damages. (Or whatever the term is...)
> >>> IANAL, but...
> >> : indirect (if you reproduce, and you distribute the copy), and direct
> >> (you make the work publicly clearly visible).
> >> I'm informed that US law are more flexible, but the GPL seems to be
> >> closed by itself to any flexibility. Furthermore, in France, or any
> >> other Authors' right country, you have to detail each rights you want to
> >> license (the license can't be implicit).
> >> These problems are minor for software (because they don't really need to
> >> be subject to a " public performance"), but are essential for other type
> >> of works.
> >> It's not a problem, because the FSF always claim that its license was
> >> for software (recommending the Free Art License for other works). In my
> >> mind, criticizing licenses is a good way to improve these ones ; so
> >> don't see my commentary as some FUD or things like that (moreover, the
> >> GPL v3 seems to correct this loophole).
> >> Yes, Laws are strange ^^,
> >> Cheers !
> >> Benjamin Jean
> > all the best,
> > drew
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses