From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: doc license section
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m34qun267v.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz>
[IANAL.]
Pierre Bernatchez <pbz@ogopogo.biz> wrote:
> GNU's role is to provide advice, guidelines and
> a rallying point, not dictating decisions.
> Leadership not autocracy, the decisions are for
> participants to arrive at by consensus.
AIUI, the FSF also takes on the responsibility of legally defending
the copyright and license of some free software. For a given package
to benefit from this protection, its copyright must be assigned to the
FSF; the FSF is not able to defend it otherwise. But since the FSF is
the copyright holder, they are entirely within their rights to decide
what license to use - since they are taking on the burden of defending
the license, it's reasonable that they should get to choose which
license to defend.
For your own code and documentation, if you don't want the FSF to
decide the license, don't assign copyright. It's a tradeoff, and the
choice is yours to make. For the code and documentation of Guile, the
contributors have already made their respective choices.
The same issues would arise if a single individual, instead of an
organization, were handling this legal work. On these issues, you can
relate to the FSF just as you would relate to another individual.
> GFDL raises questions for which adequate answers
> have yet to be given.
I agree.
> The correct default, pending further debate should be
> the status quo, what our community has been doing all along,
> publishing both source and its documentation under the same
> license.
AIUI, Marius isn't legally entitled to decide the license anyway. If
you want the license to change, you'll have to make this argument to
the FSF's legal decision-makers.
It may be that the FSF delegates this legal decision-making power to
each package maintainer and merely provides recommendations instead of
exercising its authority directly, but I'm unaware of it, and it would
surprise me.
paul
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-22 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-15 0:30 doc license section Kevin Ryde
2004-01-15 2:12 ` Stephen Compall
2004-01-20 0:46 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-15 21:37 ` Neil Jerram
2004-01-21 21:56 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 22:04 ` Carl Witty
2004-01-21 22:58 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-21 23:07 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 23:22 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-22 18:08 ` Pierre Bernatchez
2004-01-22 18:22 ` Paul Jarc [this message]
2004-01-22 23:18 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 22:13 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-21 22:40 ` Neil Jerram
2004-02-18 20:34 ` Marius Vollmer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m34qun267v.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu \
--to=prj@po.cwru.edu \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).