-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:25:13 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> 
>> 	You can't reuse the material without explicit permission, even if
>> it contains "free speech". 
> 
> That depends.  If a news story runs, say, the text of an address to the 
> nation, the reporting agency doesn't "own" the text of that speech.  
> Similarly, if they quote someone saying something - even at length - it 
> may be useable without the permission of the reporting agency, because 
> it's not *their* text.
> 
	Who said anything about needing the permission of the reporting
agency? The permission you need is that of the original author. The
fact that they allowed the agency to distribute the text has nothing
to do with what *you* are allowed to do with the text, you may be
allowed to redistribute it or not and the agency has no say in the
matter (unless the author gave it to them).

>> Under fair use, you can at most quote one or
>> two sentences, not the complete contents. On the other hand, under fair
>> use, there is no restriction on the license of your work no matter whom
>> you quote or how you quote them. 
> 
> Fair use doctrine is not very specific in what is and isn't allowed.  A 
> lot of what's allowed under it is due to court precedents, and it's not 
> codified into copyright law.  IANAL, but I've read a fair amount on the 
> subject and at least like to think I understand a lot of what I've read.
> 
	True, fair use is not strictly codified (in the US). However, I
didn't claim it was and the established precedents correspond to
what I described. Plus, the way "fair use" is defined is beside the
point, which is: "fair use" has nothing to do with "Free software"
and precious little to do with "Free speech".

>> GPL is completely different: it allows
>> you to redistribute the whole contents with or without modification but
>> it imposes some restrictions on the license you put you contribution in:
>> it must also be GPL. This show that there is absolutely no relation
>> whatsoever between "free speech" and the GPL (which doesn't prevent
>> something to be both, but that's another question).
> 
> "Free speech" vs "free beer" isn't about equating OSS to "free speech", 

	In the minds of too many people, it is. And I was answering your
comment saying that "they [GPL and Free Speech] didn't seem
different to you".

> it's about defining the word "free".  I think that's what confuses a lot 
> of people.  It's not an equation, it's an ideal.  It's that difference 
> between Libre and Gratis.
> 
> Jim

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhj2sAACgkQd0kWM4JG3k9T7ACgpgWeG4rZ8MCxbvLf1LvEHFUS
oEYAoKlTLn3ARONJsmFVjy2i22g6P+rb
=912+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message