discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
"jdd for http://tldp.org" ####@####.####
Date:
26 Sep 2008 10:07:14 +0100
Message-Id: <48DCA602.9040807@dodin.org>
Rick Moen a écrit :
> Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####
>> it's in the manner a dual licencing have to be written. "Dual
>> licencing" as itself have no meaning. "or" is not sufficient nor
>> theory of sets :-)
>
> Listen here: I've been involved in licensing for dozens of years, and
> you are simply incorrect in asserting that the term "dual licensing" has
> no established meaning. If you choose to disbelieve me, that's your
> prerogative, though, but I will have no further interest in discussion
> of the matter, if so.
well, in this case, you have to quote or link real trustable source
(sorry, nor your opinion nor mine have any legal value)
>
>
>> My understanding of dual licencing is the same as
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license and the referenced works:
>
> That Wikipedia entry is badly written, confusing, and misleading --
> which is frankly not very surprising.
but it seems the same to all the document linked from this wikipedia
page. This alone seems to say that the word "dual licencing" is not
sufficient to set the definition, or where is the true definition?
When a large bunch of people don't agree on a definition, this simply
mean the definition is unclear.
nobody is the owner of any word. In legal discussion, a definition
have to be set by an official document (wikipedia is certainly not,
this thread neither) or a case law.
Notice, I don't challenge the facts under the dual licencing, only the
use of the words as it.
I want to be matter of facts. I have no personal preference against
licencing. My own work is available for anybody use for anybody thing
including proprietary work (this is what *I* want) even if on my HOWTO
I tried to set an LDP friendly licence.
So my goal, as already said, is to find a way of life for the LDP.
The problems we have right now for updating of the HOWTOs is like a
headache!! if we can have less problems in the future, it's better :-)
So I think it better for us to stop soon this discussion, if you can
give me some answers:
* is the *present* default licence (GFDL without...) filling our goal?
* if not what can we do?
* How can we, practically, know if a document proposed for LDP
inclusion is compatible with our goals? What do we have to do to
ensure this (is the optional licence list compatible? what do we have
to see in the document to know we can keep it?)
jdd
(we can still continue privately, if you want to, and report if any
intersting thing comes)
--
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net
