On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 6:09 AM al3xu5 <dotcommon@???> wrote:

> 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.

>

I would like to register my disagreement with some parts of this concept!

>

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

>

Most everything I do here is in some shape or way related to something
commercial!
I use this or I build that or I modify this that and the next thing to
either make something
happen or build it or whatever and I do hope to make money with this stuff!
Its how I
provide for myself. Perhaps you are independently wealthy and need
absolutely no
more to live even reasonably. I need to feed my hobbies some of which may
have the
potential to feed others well likely far before they contribute to feeding
me! This kind
of statement is quite upotian and severely limits a lot of stuff imo!
(Please note the imo
at the end!!!)

>

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

>

If correct attribution is practiced this is another developmental
hinderance.
If I can further improve your doc/build/whatever - - - - how is that
'hurting/
injuring' you. Now if your idea is commercial then you can say this but if
it
truly is open source why would you want to hinder someone from improving
your stuff. Practically - - - - - I did it all the time in the trades - - -
its quite
normal. Some cheap azzed company makes something that with some minor
tweaks works much better. Why wouldn't I get such done? To respect
someone's
'ideas'? Blarney - - - - after I've bought the piece I should be allowed to
improve
it - - - always supposing that one does know something of what one is
doing.
(Companies are generally run by accountants or lawyers with the aim of
making
a profit - - - - making a quality product is most often almost invisible on
the list
its so far down!)

>

>     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 ...
>

Only in ideal circumstances - - - - the NE USA you would be lucky to get
15 years except in very controlled conditions!

>
> 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?


I think I still have some of that hardware around. If not I am quite sure
that
I could find it. (Don't want to but there you are!)

As a distribution system CDroms, DVDs and Blu-ray discs are great. They
are not quite as good for archival purposes - - - density isn't increasing
fast enough to drive down costs. Bet they work better for archive than a
hard drive when one is faced with dirty or very intermittent power supply
though.

Regards

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

(Well - - - there is some value to each of these, its the stupidly long
hold
times that have come about so a few large firms can retain the control
on their cash cows that I argue with. After someone is dead their heirs
are quite allowed to get their own patooties in gear to make their own
living rather than living off of inherited goodies! (IMO))