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

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:34 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones
> <hentai_yagi@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>         Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring
>         users to
>         checkout from the revision control system.
> GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):

I don't normally read html email (you got flaged as spam), but I read
the paragraph you quoted.

>      c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
>     License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
>     License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
>     additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
>     regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
>     permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
>     invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
> Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work
> into different packages, otherwise everyone would do this.

How do you define an entire work ? Code and content to me are two
separate works. As the copyright holder, it would be my prerogative to
license either how I see fit, and I see nothing in that license that
states I must license my other works under it, just because I choose to
distribute them together.

>         I know I'd laugh at anyone that said that to me about my data
> The GPL does not distinguish between "code" and "content", both of
> which are "data" aka "software".  With the attitude you've presented,
> and given that your work is almost certainly building on the GPL
> licensed work owned by others, I can see legal trouble in your future.

My subversion repositories are freely available on the Internet. You'll
find they do comply with the license of any code I use, that is in the
repository (which is in bulk written by myself). 

Whilst you may not think so, I do champion the GPL - your interpretation
of it however, certainly gives one consideration that it is an unwise
choice if people such as yourself will claim other non-GPL works
distributed with GPL works must be covered by the GPL.


Jamie Jones
Email: jamie_jones_au@yahoo.com.au

GPG/PGP signed mail preferred.
PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209
Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209

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

Reply to: