savannah-register-public
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #4371] Submission of Texi2HTML


From: anonymous
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #4371] Submission of Texi2HTML
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:22:08 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050623 Fedora/1.0.4-5 Firefox/1.0.4

Follow-up Comment #21, task #4371 (project administration):

I am not identified but of course it is me, Patrice...

Yes the images come from the singular project. But they choosed that licence
because I proposed them otherwise singular is GPL. I'll get in touch with
them. Anyway from your post I am pretty sure that redistributing the images
together with the code doesn't break the Creative Common licence. I am not a
lawyer but for the creative commons a derivative work could be for example the
inclusion of the images in an HTML page, not the inclusion in the same
tarball. 

For the GPL it seems that if it is in the same tarball it is a derivative
work. However it doesn't define what is a derivative work and refers to the
copyright law, which seems to imply that the creative common licence doesn't
follow the copyright law in their definition of a derivative work. Here is the
excerpt from the GPL: 
 "any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language."

However the GPL always refers to a program so to anybody but a lawyer, the
images seem to be out of the scope of the GPL. That point of view is supported
by the fact that the GNU manual are not under the GPL but the FDL that cannot
be relicenced to be the GPL too. If we remove the images we should remove the
manual too.
Or am I misunderstanding something?

Anyway the licence you cited appears to be also incompatible with the GPL. In
fact I don't see any difference between the CC-SA licence and the artlibre
licence they seem to be based on exactly the same principles (and the same
principles that the GPL), see for the matter of incorporation in a work:
"All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you are
not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents) into
another work which would not be subject to this license."


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=4371>

_______________________________________________
  Message posté via/par Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]