The answers helped me much. I think people often argue intentional with
factoids. Its important to set against it!
Thanx and sorry for the "no subject"
R. Henze
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
Hi,
Ive had recently a strange e-mail discussion about GPL.
The other person hold the view that every new program under the GPL
increases the might of Richard Stallman.
Because there is a clause in the GPL with the meaning that if a new version
of the GPL is out, the new version has validity for the old software.
Sounds unbelievable for me.
R. Henze
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
I guess there's little doubt about the doc-format being opaque.
Converting to OpenOffice seems to solve the transparancy-problem.
Thanks.
The real point of discussion: asking a professor to switch to the FDL is
causing him (or his staff) extra work.
I somewhere read that the original author isn't bound by the terms of
the license. What exactly does that mean?
Can it mean that the professor himself is not obliged to create an
online copy, but only those who copies the course?
That would be nice: the professor doesn't have extra work, just needs to
put the FDL-notice in front and a copy of the license at the end. No
extra work involved.
Maybe there are other ways to circumvent extra workload for the
professor or his staff:
Most university courses are copied with a photocopier, a work often done
by student-organisations. Instead of releasing it himself as an
FDL-text, the professor could give the student organisation a choice:
release it with traditional notices, or under the FDL. Some students
can then voluntarily work towards an online FDL-copy during the year,
while releasing in the mean time, traditional onces, and next year
switching to everything to FDL.
Or is something like this possible:
"This document is itself not under the FDL, but you have the right to
distribute it under the FDL."
Thus giving all students the right to make copies in copy-centers for
friends and relatives, which is now not the case. Only in large volumes
like a publishing company trying to parasite (can i use that word?) on
the work by not giving royalties to the author on the printed books, it
would be obliged to create an online copy. In that way, those companies
are giving something useful back where a online-community can build on
further.
Wouter Vanden Hove
www.worldhistory-poster.com
http://lwn.net/Articles/5409/
LWN: The end of the road
So the time has come to face the reality of the situation: what LWN
is offering is not what the market is willing to pay for at this
time. It's time to find something else to do.
The end result is that next week's LWN Weekly Edition (August 1)
will be the last. This has not been an easy decision to make, to say
the least. But, barring some sort of last minute miracle (do contact
us if you have one, please!), we do not see any alternative.
This is a sad development.
I'm personally willing to pay for high quality information
if it stays accessible to everybody. LWN offered just this.
Only in the recent months they've set up an improving system to pay them.
Because of the apparent urgeny of the matter I've personally
payed them today to help to make the mircale happen.
Bernhard
Hi,
During my ongoing search of free licenses in all kinds of documentation,
I've come across a PostNuke Guide at
http://www.drewvogel.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&r…
On the first page is stated:
------------------------------------
"LICENSE & COPYRIGHT FOR THIS GUIDE
The Official PostNuke Installation and Getting started Guide was written
by Drew Vogel. Copyright 2002 by Drzew Vogel. All rights reserved.
You may not distribute, modify, or translate this Guide without prior
consent of Drew Vogel (drew(a)drewvogel.com). The only approved use is
review,comment, and personal use.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draf v.1.0, 5 Juni
1999 or later (the latest version is available at
http://www.opencontent.org/openpub ).
Distribution and/or sale of substantively modified versions of this
document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright
holder.
Distribution and/or sale of the work or derivative of the work in any
standard (paper) book form or printed form is prohibited unless prior
permission is obtained from the copyright holder."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appearantly, this guide is dual licensed with a traditional license and
the OPL with options A and B. So the first statements do not contradict
the terms of the OPL with options. Correct?
But when you compare these options with options A and B of the OPL, you
see that they are changed:
"Distribution" ---> "Distribution AND/OR SALE" (2X)
"any standard (paper) book form" --->
"any standard (paper) book form OR PRINTED FORM"
Are such changes allowed?
Of course, a copyright holder chooses whatever he wishes, but if he
chooses OPL+options, can he then change the options to more restrictive
ones?
Wouter Vanden Hove
Hi,
I recently started a discussion[1] on the debian-legal mailing list
and tried to gain consensus about the requirements of commercial and
non-commercial distributors of binary-only CDs containing software
which is licensed using the GNU GPL[2]. Distributing only binary
components and not the source is quite common these days, even though
some distributors still distribute both. For example think of Litrux,
Lindows, Knoppix, non-official Debian CDs that are handed out during
LinuxTag, CDs enclosed in computer magazines etc.
I've compiled a document[3] in which I've explained the corresponding
bits of the GNU GPL and concluded with advice and additional
information.
I would be glad if some of you could take a glance at it and drop me a
line when my/our interpretation or advice is wrong or needs an update.
Thanks a lot,
Joey
Links:
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0207/msg00192.html
2. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
3. http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/legal
--
Long noun chains don't automatically imply security. -- Bruce Schneier
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Why Free Software's Long Run TCO must be lower
Brendan Scott 15 July 2002
http://www.members.optushome.com.au/brendanscott/papers/freesoftwaretco1507…
Haven't fully read the paper yet, thus I don't know how good it is.
Still I've found paragraphs I liked already:
Source code sharing arrangements where the source code for
proprietary software is made available but not on a free software
basis, are dangerous for users because of the viral nature of
proprietary software.
8. Strategic implications for purchasers.
(a) The short term costs of proprietary systems may be lower than
those of free software systems. However, free software systems hold
the advantage over the long term;
[..]
We note that these conclusions are independent of the fact
or amount of any license fees charged in relation to the proprietary
software.
Note that this seems to be an argumentation focussing on the
monentary aspect of software. There is also an ethical aspect to
Free Software which is important to companies and people
on a higher strategic level.
Hi,
To recapitulate: asking a professor to change their courses from the
traditional copyright-notice to the FDL, causes him or his staff the
extra work of creating an online version, which in almost all cases does
not exist now.
To put it frankly, it comes down to this:
(Of course I wouldn't put it in an email this blunt:)
"Dear Professor,
Could you please change the copyright-notice to the FDL.
And could you add some cover-texts that has to be on the book if some
publisher prints your course commercially without paying you any
royalties which he's then very much allowed to do.
And could please download and install OpenOffice.
And could please load your Word-file into Openoffice and save that in an
open and transparant format.
And could you check that all of the conversion of your 200-page syllabus
went OK.
And could you put that file in your ftp-directory .
And could you write in your text-book that anyone can download it from
there.
And could leave that file there for at least one year.
Thank you very much."
Quite some demands, not?
Is the FDL in such cases to big a step to take at once?
Wouldn't be more succesfull (on a quantitative scale) to advocate the
Open Publication License for university-syllabusses?
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
The only thing they have to do then is change the copyright-notice.
Right?
I can imagine that quite some people don't like the commercial
redistribution by publishers without receiving any royalties. They will
probably refuse to switch to the FDL. Instead of sticking to the
traditional very restrictive notice, they can choose option B of the
OPL, that prohibits commercial publication.
I don't really see objections in this option B, since it is more like an
industrial regulation, not affecting small distributors like students
and non-profit-organisations, giving a lot more freedom to users then
traditional copyright-notices.
The Open Content License, on the contrary, prohibits asking a fee for
the copies. This renders it useless if courses are distributed by
student-organisations.
What do you think?
Wouter Vanden Hove
FYI
----- Forwarded message from Monty <xiphmont(a)xiph.org> -----
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:10:37 -0400
To: vorbis(a)xiph.org, vorbis-dev(a)xiph.org
Subject: [vorbis-dev] Vorbis 1.0 released
From: xiphmont(a)xiph.org (Monty)
Nothing much else to say. Vorbis 1.0 is officially out. Have at.
Monty
--- >8 ----
List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request(a)xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
----- End forwarded message -----