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

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 16:13:11 CST

On Dec 25, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:

> 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".

Indeed, we need to get our "legal staff" (Staff? What staff?) to look
at the EVMPL or whatever we call it.

> 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.

We need to look at this too. My current feelings are that the
documentation
licence should certainly allow copying as copying. The big question is,
what licence do we extend to modify, as opposed to disseminate?

Say that Commercial Voting Company decides to reverse engineer our
product,
out from under EVMPL, and then they simply copy our docs, with their
name
on them, edited to make them specific to CVC and only acknowledging the
copyright in the fine print (5 point type), without kicking any money
into
the kitty.

                        Doug Jones
                        jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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