Sat, 4 Sep 2021 09:44:21 -0500 - o1bigtenor via Dng <dng@???>:

> [...]

> > > >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.
> > ~~~

> >
> > [...]

Maybe you have miss something here...

The discussion was not general, but specific about which license to choose
for a technical document written by an author (Steve).

The author -- who is the copyrighy owner -- wants to share his work,
letting people use it for personal purposes, and eventually sharing
it with attribution and without modifications, neither of the license nor
the document content.

Given that situation, a GNU Verbatim Copying and Distribution license or
the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International seems to fit the author requirements (he
is the author, he decide how to license its work).

For example and more clarification, in *this given situation* the CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0 International seems to be good as:
BY: means people must cite the author when share the work with others
NC: means people must use and/or share the author's work only for personal
(i.e. non commercial) purposes (being the author free to use its own work
for *any* purpose, commercial included)
ND: means people can use/modify the author's work for personal
"internal" purposes, but cannot share modified copies of the original work
(which must be shared also keeping the author's license statements)
International: is to apply the license worldwide (as it could be shared on
the internet).



> > 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))

I know. And agree with you. But copyright & c. are by the establishment to
ensure income and power for the benefit of very few people, and to the
detriment of all others. Those few are the ones who make the laws, so I
don't think there will ever be fair laws on copyright & c. -- It remains
only to resist against them in some other way. Starting with saying NO.


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