Development of Creative Commons licenses

["B. Jean" <veille.jus AT gmail.com>]

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 ;
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.
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.

Yet, maybe I'm wrong somewhere, just correct me :)

Cheers,
Benjamin
> 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
>