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 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