Re: FAQ copyright? (I suggest Creative Commons' licenses)

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Dec 25 2003 - 23:19:25 CST

At 7:16 AM -0800 12/25/03, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, David Mertz wrote:
>
>> For code, we agreed on the almost-GPL license EVMPL... and I *do* feel
>> strongly about that.
>
>That agreement should be reviewed by someone who really and deeply
>understands the GPL. By my lights, the GPL doesn't mesh with the concept
>of "almost".
>
>As I understand it, under the GPL you can make neither changes nor
>additions. So my understanding is that for GPL code, it is either 100%
>GPL or 0% GPL. There's no way to do either 99% or 101% GPL.
>
>One of the things I like about the Creative Commons licenses for written
>documents is that, unlike code, there is a greater custom of asking for,
>and giving, permission. In addition, the concept of fair use is more
>clearly understood with respect to written texts than it is for code.

I think our license is patterned after GPL except that it adds a few
additional restrictions having to do with maintaining a version
history with rationale. I would suggest that the documentation be
licensed for purposes related to the use of the EVM system. I'm not
sure how that should be written legally.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= 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