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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 13:43, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
> >    You have mistaken the objection.  There is no reason to think it would
> >    be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
> >    manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
> >    way that single functions of Lisp are.
> >
> >Reusing a single paragraph is fair use--you don't need to follow the
> >license conditions.
> As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
> concept. Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist, and copying a
> single paragraph from a GFDLed work would require me to fulfil the
> license conditions.
Not *entirely* true.  Yes, the UK doesn't the same carte-blanche "fair
use" allowance of other Copyright laws, but it does have an equivalent. 
The entirety of Chapter III (Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright
Works) acts in this way, providing allowances for "Fair dealing" for
various reasons.

It's a lot stricter than the open "fair use allowed" statement, but it
is free enough to (for example) allow me to quote both yours and
Richard's mails in this.

It isn't free enough (afaik) to allow Richard's idea of "fair use"
though -- unless you're doing so for Research, Private Study, Criticism,
Review, News Reporting, Educationally, et al.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: