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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:37:59AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, 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.
> 	Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1

That paragraph is about quotations. It does not apply to anything

> >Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist,
> 	Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, art. 32.

That section is about the use of copyrighted materials for
education. It does not apply to anything else.

It is written in fiddly UK lawyerspeak, but it only applies to
schools, colleges, universities, and similar bodies.

The only approximation to "Fair Use" in the UK is "Fair Dealing",
which only applies to criticism and review (in the literary sense),
private study, or news reporting. It is also limited to "reasonable
proportions", both in the quantity copied and in the number of copies

None of these things apply to copying for the purpose of reuse in your
own work (ie, not quoting). That is always copyright infringement in
the UK, for any work in which copyright subsists, regardless of

> >and copying a single paragraph from a GFDLed work would require me
> >to fulfil the license conditions.
> 	false

You are a moron. Your contribution is not valued by anybody on this
list. Kindly piss off.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: