Re: Org-mode exporters licensing

[Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net>]

On 27/07/15 14:42, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:
> 
>> On 27/07/15 13:52, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>> I disagree.  Licensing a tutorial with GPL is a stupid thing to do.
>>> A tutorial may contain code which people naturally mimic (or even
>>> copy).  Such things should definitely be in PD.
> 
> [many excellent comments.   As a nit, to reuse another's work under the
> GPL under a BSD license, you need more than them not to object; you
> need their affirmative permission.   And if much of org is assigned to
> the FSF, as I believe it is, that means the FSF's permission.  That's a
> use of resources about something that doesn't really matter much.]
> 
> Indeed.  A major point of which Marcin seems unaware is that licensing
> in a project in is more than a legal matter.  The license terms are a
> declaration of intent for how the code will be shared, and people
> contirbute under an expectation that those norms will be followed.
> 
> In particular, the GPL is designed to allow sharing only when the
> recipients receive rights to further share (and more).  In other words,
> not only is the code Free Software, but any derived works (that are
> distributed) will also be Free Software.  With a BSD-style license, or
> PD, derived works may or may not be Free.
> 
> Regardless of licensing, you can't make a derived work from copyrighted
> code and have it be PD.   And as Daniele points out, new works being PD
> only works in some jurisdictions (hence CC0).

Very good points!

I really like the "declaration of intent" pint of view.

Cheers,
Daniele