Re: FAQ copyright? (I suggest Creative Commons'

From: Karl Auerbach <karl_at_cavebear_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 25 2003 - 15:09:13 CST

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, David Mertz wrote:

> The code is NOT GPL. I guess that's 0%, if you want to put it that way.
> All the source code for EVM2003 is under the EVMPL.
>
> It's the LICENSE that is "almost-GPL." In fact, I believe that EVMPL is
> -probably- "GPL compatible", in the sense that code written under EVMPL
> may be licenced under GPL.

OK, no problem at this end of the wire.

Could I suggest that the EVM license be written out in its entirety rather
than refering to the GPL by reference? The GPL does have a provision that
allows new versions and my sense is that, if such changes did occur, there
could be a bit of confusion.

[I am not attemptting to revisit a decision already made. As would tend
to come through, I'm not convinced of the value of the copyleft aspect of
the GPL. Except when forced otherwised, I've always used open source
licenses that don't contain the copyleft aspect of requiring downstream
innovators to also open source their contributions.]

As for Creative Commons - the guardians of those licenses for
non-programming works are very much in tune with the concept of open
access, free use, reusability, etc.

                --karl--

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:18 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:19 CST