Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
- From: Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 29 Aug 2003 20:36:24 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <002667585e2aa9074422ddd737a7772c@Bouncing>
- References: <002667585e2aa9074422ddd737a7772c@Bouncing>
> > If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be
> > granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can
> > regive his speech at the infinite.
> If I want to actually "reuse his speech" in either the sense of a
> recording or his exact wording, then techically I do need to be
> granted that permission. I can give my own speech based on the ideas
> (normally), but I cannot regive his speech.
> > If we were about to make a license for everything, speeches would be
> > licensed too...
> Ah, but they are. Go look at the licences on
As you said previously, here it's recording, with the real voices of
Hopefully it's licensed: laws forbid you to record someone who is not
aware of it, it seems normal to me.
But as you said, you "I can give my own speech based on the ideas",
and so you "can regive his speech" (you can use the exact same wording
if you want).
And as you noticed, the important point is to be able to regive the
ideas. Which is already possible with any book.
Not a native english speaker: