 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> More precisely, if you distribute the binaries *whether they are
> modified or not*, you have to make the source available as well.
Not only that, you have to distribute the sources under the GPL. You can't
change to another OSS license.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:30:41 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>
>> Precisely my point: under copyright law, you can't.
>
> You can't *what*, exactly?
>
You can't reuse the material without explicit permission, even if
it contains "free speech". 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. 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).
> You can use someone else's material under fair use doctrine (in the US at
> least) and with attribution in most cases. *Some* organizations (most
> recently and notably, the Associated Press) try to put additional
> restrictions in place. That may not be enforceable.
>
> Jim
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] free fr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhiqakACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/irACgnctfw8PHKMEA975Jn5p25DDM
PKkAn0nAjOTup1l+nvne+rCknfIn05JT
=YYsy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
> 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",
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:01:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> For example copy the contents of a book and include it in your own
> book,
> no matter how much "free speech" that book contains.
How many books out there contain the full text of Martin Luther King
Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.
> Only up to a certain point. You can't, for example, copy entire books.
> Not even in the US.
Depends on when the copyright expires. Go have a look at Project
Gutenberg for many examples where this is allowed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:03:00 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Not only that, you have to distribute the sources under the GPL. You
> can't
> change to another OSS license.
That depends on whether or not you own the code. Many organizations dual-
license under the GPL and a closed license, MySQL, for example, does this.
Granted, that's code *they* wrote, not contributed code.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stu wrote:
> I've been using povray for many years, through lots of distributions...
> and now, having finally downloaded debian ETCH, I find there is
> no povray on the CDs. It was on the old SuSE, and openSuSE, but
> not on debian-ETCH.
>
> Hmmm. Even though Pov-Ray is totally free, debian considers it
> "non-free", and, as I said, it is nowhere on the full CD set I
> downloaded.
>
> S-oooo... what Im wondering really is if any other debian/etch
> povray users may know of an unofficial CD including the non-free
> programs for ETCH, with povray of course ?
>
> thanks to anyone who may know
As others said, POV-Ray is in the 'non-free' section of Debian. Add the
following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free contrib
then :
% apt-get update
% apt-get install povray
-a.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:03:00 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Not only that, you have to distribute the sources under the GPL. You
>> can't
>> change to another OSS license.
>
> That depends on whether or not you own the code. Many organizations dual-
> license under the GPL and a closed license, MySQL, for example, does this.
>
> Granted, that's code *they* wrote, not contributed code.
>
This doesn't apply here since we were talking about distributing
someone else's code...
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)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhj2xwACgkQd0kWM4JG3k8LPwCgnH++mgDo/flrIOkBP3dli9QJ
kdMAn29sTkNQxjVR7Xe+8KQ6EabPiAN9
=tg65
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:08:28 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>> Not only that, you have to distribute the sources under the GPL. You
>>> can't
>>> change to another OSS license.
>>
>> That depends on whether or not you own the code. Many organizations
>> dual- license under the GPL and a closed license, MySQL, for example,
>> does this.
>>
>> Granted, that's code *they* wrote, not contributed code.
>>
> This doesn't apply here since we were talking about distributing
> someone else's code...
I was making a general comment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:06:56 +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> -----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).
It depends on the terms of the copyright that's in force. There is such
a thing as implied copyright (ie, it's not explicitly declared).
If I stand up at a local community council meeting and talk for 10
minutes, there's no reason that a report cannot take what I've said,
write it down, and publish it. There have been cases (ISTR) where
someone then took that reported text and used it and was sued by the news
agency. Right or wrong, I do recall hearing of things like this
happening, even when the publisher didn't "own" the content. I used a
"news agency" example because it's a fairly common situation, and with
AP's recent decision to sue people who quote more than 4 words from AP
articles without *paying* them for the use of the quote, that was at the
front of my mind.
> 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".
<shrug> The conversation evolved a bit. When talking about similarities
between Free (libre) software and Free speech, these ideas become
germaine. You can't talk about the similarities without talking about
what they mean.
> 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".
Well, in discussing it here, my thinking evolved a little. So shoot
me. ;-)
>> 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
