Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:08:05 -0400

Benjamin,

you still do not directly comment on my point that people constantly put code
on display on web sites via web/cvs integration.

I think I get your point, but it seems like it is violated in practice all
day
long.


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
--
(da idea man)
http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page