Sat, 4 Sep 2021 04:14:12 -0400 - Steve Litt <slitt@???>:

> golinux@??? said on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:18:43 -0500
>
> >Jaromil . . . please advise regarding the policy for using the Devuan
> >trademark and DNG acronym on a license for a document compiled and
> >written from comments on the DNG list by Steve Litt.
> >
> >My .02 . . .
> >
> >Whoa! Any license using the Devuan trademark would have to go through
> >Dyne. Even licensing "DNG" could be debatable. Before any action is
> >even considered, you'll need to pass it by Jaromil/Dyne.

Just to clarify and avoid misunderstandings:

- I know there are trademarks etc.

- My proposal for one "DNG Verbatim Libre License" was, precisely, just a
proposal...

- I made the proposal saying "I suggest sometihing like"... So, the
proposed text was a "sample", where terms like "DNG" or "Devuan" and the
content text were, in fact, to be discuss (in case you were interested
in doing so)

[...]


> >And what use is a verbatim (or any other) license unless you have the
> >financial resources to challenge those who might violate it.

Hum... Many opensource projects are managed by small organizations or
individuals, and are released with licenses such as Apache, BSD, MIT,
Expat and many others: the authors certainly have no finance resources to
pursue violations, and I doubt that others (the "holders" of these
licenses) they do it for them.

In this specific case, it is simply a question of using a license that
tells people: know who is the author of this documentation, and that you
can use it, and that if you want to redistribute then you have to indicate
the author and you don't have to change the content...


> Yes. The bulk of the feedback here indicates that this documentation
> project is better off allowing distribution of modifications.

So -- for my experience and knowledge -- good options could be:

- GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution

which states:

~~~
Copyright YEAR AUTHOR

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
of this entire document without royalty provided the
copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved.
~~~

- Creative commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>

which states:

~~~
You are free to:

    Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

    The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the
    license terms.

Under the following terms:

    Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
    license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
    reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
    endorses you or your use.

    NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

    NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,
    you may not distribute the modified material.

    No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or
    technological measures that legally restrict others from doing
    anything the license permits.
~~~

or any other similar verbatim license.


> >Carving it into a stone tablet might be the best method of pristine
> >preservation.
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)


Indeed :-)

But even a paper papyrus would not be bad. It also resists 5000+ years ...

A CDROM that resists 50 years is already a miracle; And even if it were,
in 50 years it will be difficult to even find a reader ...

Someone today can read a 5 1/4 floppy?


Regards
al3xu5

--
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
restrictions!
____________________________________________________________________________

Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B