Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [030909 13:35]:
> > MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> a tapoté :
> > > No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software.
> >
> > Is this mail a software? If I put this mail in a CVS, does it make
> > this mail a software?
>
> The term "software" is used here (and at a lot of other places) as
> "representation of works in machine-readable form". This means that
> this mail is "software".
>
> But: Most of the mails here are not copyright-able at all, and thus
> have no license status and can be included everywhere and even in
> main.
Really? If I send a script in a email without license notice, it makes
it free software? If I post a poem in a email, does it means it
suppress copyright laws? This is highly doubtful. When you have no
license that grants you rights, given by the copyright holder, it's
usually the copyright laws that are applied. And without explicit
permission, you have none.
Is there a sensible explanation that would makes mails not
copyright-able?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: