On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM al3xu5 <dotcommon@???> wrote:
> 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!
> >
> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> > > NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial
> > > purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> >
> > 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> Again - - - that is one way of trying to change something.
Except trying to toss out EVERYTHING will likely lose you supporters.
Now if you work on changing the balance of power - - - ie changing things
so a corporate interest can NOT hold copyright or or or - - - - now you
will
still have a huge fight on your hands but all the artists and small
companies
will also be supporting you AND you may find traction among john q public
and susie q soccermom distinctly easier to get - - - they also want to
support
their 'friends' (the little players). Getting the behemoths to play along -
- -
now that's the challenge!!!
I'd bet our actual positions are actually quite close - - - grin!
Pace
::
Re: [DNG] License for the DNG creat…
