Re: [ox-en] Copyleft on Everything?
- From: MJ Ray <markj cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:20:23 -0000
Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> wrote:
the simplest one I could see, and where I knew I had rms's seal of
approval (I don't actually think he's hypocritical in this, as you
suggested before). [...]
I know you may be worried that I'll sue you for copying my words, but
there's no need to misquote me. I said arbitrary and illogical, not
hypocritical: he definitely follows his own opinion on the licence of
But I couldn't do either of the above because of the conference
Both relying on "fair use rights" and "public domain" will fail in
certain jurisdictions. Sadly, it's a real problem that has to be
dealt with, unless you take the "intellectual property law is all
mind-theft regulation" stance.
I do think the gfdl or similar licenses are entirely appropriate for
technical manuals, which is what it was intended for. If you do use the
Again, I find it arbitrary. Why can you only edit parts of the GFDL
work that relate to the main purpose? You can't even remove BloggsCo's
advertorial about how the product helped them, or the author's "Ode to
This all seems WAY too serious to me for a little web article hardly
Blame the lawyers. They started it. /me runs.
But yes, more hacking, less chinning.
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: slef jabber.at
This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.