[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About Glossary licensing



On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:46:42 +0100 Justin B Rye wrote:

> I'm fairly sure I don't understand how traditional copyright law
> applies to wikis in the first place.  If the default is a nonfree
> license that doesn't grant anybody the right of modification, doesn't
> that make all contributors criminals automatically?

Strictly speaking, one could claim that, without an explicit license
that permits modifications, every user that modifies a wiki page is
violating the original author's copyright.

However, I think that granting some (or all) users the *technical*
permission to modify that page may be seen as also *implicitly*
granting them the *legal* permission to make modifications on that page.

But please note that I am really uncomfortable in relying on such
*implicit* licenses.
Moreover, I think that, in the described scenario, there would be no
permission, implicit or explicit, to copy and redistribute, or to copy,
modify, and redistribute.
Hence, the wiki page would *not* comply with the DFSG, even after taking
*implicit* permissions into account.

Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

> 
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I am hesitant about diving into a long explanation, because I am afraid
> > it would drive the discussion far away into off-topic territory for this
> > list.
> > So, to cut a long story short: availability of source code is crucial
> > for any kind of Free Work
> 
> This may well be true for the kinds of Free Works that C programmers
> produce, but if I create an oil painting, a license that tries to
> describe the situation in terms of source code and object code is just
> introducing irrelevant complications.

Let's not complicate further: we are talking about digital works, where
the concepts of source and object are much clearer and easier to apply.

>  
> > You are basically saying that the Glossary is made up of material
> > copied from various places either without permission or with untracked
> > (and possibly mutually incompatible) licenses.  
> 
> The *information* comes from any number of sources.  But as I
> understand it the raw facts in a reference book aren't subject to
> copyright anyway; it's only a problem if the presentation is copied
> too, and the glossary has had quite a lot of rewriting.

Well, then I do not see why you raised the objection.
If only facts, ideas, and concepts were taken from elsewhere, while the
expression that describes them is yours, you are the copyright holder
for the part of the Glossary written by you (which is the majority, if
I understand correctly).

In order to license the Glossary under the GPLv2 (or under the Expat,
if you prefer), you simply have to get in touch with the copyright
holders for the other (minor) parts and get their consent...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpMQc29TsbY2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: