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

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 19:58:59 CST

At 5:34 PM -0800 12/26/03, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Arthur Keller wrote:
>
>> >One possible way to reconcile the concept of open source/documentation (I
>> >won't get into the argument about whether one wants the copyleft aspect or
>> >now) is to have the OVC, now that it is a corporation, to create a trade
>> >or service mark that it will allow to be used only on those versions that
>> >meet the OVC's requirements.
>>
>> Or the doc authors can formally assign the copyright to the OVC.
>
>That doesn't help when the material is under an open-source license. The
>trade/service mark allows the OVC to grant its impramateur to those
>versions of the code (or documentation) that are worthy and to withhold it
>from those that aren't good enough.

The source and docs can have differing licenses. Source code is
essentially useful mainly in its entirety. Documentation is useful
in parts. An imprimateur to the source is useful. But to the docs,
much less so. In part, this is because of the potential case Doug
Jones stated.

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