| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licensesThe Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licensesPosted Oct 27, 2004 16:37 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses by zlynx Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses
It is a problem. Short code examples can be included based on "fair use" even when the licenses conflict, but anything more substantial cannot be moved from a GPL'd file collection to a GFDL'd file collection or vice versa without all the copyright holders agreeing to a license change. For example, you might like the example calculator program in the Bison manual; you might want to take it, enhance it a bit, and distribute it. But you can't mix it with any GPL'd code, and you might need a lawyer to help you figure out what you have to do to distribute the executable.
(Log in to post comments)
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses Posted Oct 27, 2004 16:44 UTC (Wed) by kimoto (subscriber, #5244) [Link] On debian-legal, it is often asserted that there are jurisdictions where there is no such thing as "fair use". (IANAL so can't pass judgment on that.)
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses Posted Oct 28, 2004 5:07 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Such assertions are demonstrably wrong. Without fair use, you couldn't quote even the tiniest portion of a copyrighted work, or even read aloud (what? you are performing the work without the explicit permission of the copyright holder!) and I know of no country where people fear prosecution for quoting one line of a book. That shows that everyone has some concept of fair use, even if they don't call it that.
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses Posted Oct 28, 2004 6:54 UTC (Thu) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] They do not exist in the EU, which is a larger market than the US. Instead the US has quotation rights, which allow you to quote from a document. It is a lot more restrictive than fair use.
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses Posted Nov 4, 2004 8:56 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I'll give you an example of a jurisdiction where there is no *statutory* concept of "fair use".
In practice we get away with it under common law (and bringing lawsuits is expensive - the doctrine of "loser pays" and "plaintiff pays for nuisance suits" means prosecution is unlikely).
As an example - I make a "fair use" quote. The copyright owner sues me. I offer to pay the value of the work. The owner is now in a dilemma. If he accepts my offer, he's paid hundreds of pounds of court fees and got tens of pounds in copyright fees back (I don't have to pay his costs). If he *doesn't* accept my offer, and then the judge/jury accept my offer as reasonable, he not only has to pay *his* legal costs, but *mine* *as* *well*.
Lawsuits just don't happen under those sorts of rules ...
Cheers,
The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses Posted Nov 4, 2004 8:58 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Whoops - I didn't say what exactly that jurisdiction was. It's pretty clearly mine, the UK.
Cheers,
|
|
||||||||||||