Title: Various contributions
Contributions enyst made that bkuhn recovered during gitorious switch.
Under review
There are no reviewers
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-enyst various-contributions
2015-04-02 23:09:55
engel nyst (enyst)
engel.nyst@gmail.com
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
Potential Reviewers
Click to add the repository owner as reviewer:
1 comment (0 inline, 1 general)
Showing 7 commits
7 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
93e6e62e6a5a various-contributions
The fragment is indeed large enough to be fair to state its license. I'd suggest however to not say that quotations are licensable. Not every quotation is 'licensed' or needs to be. In theory, anyway. While in this case it's okay, I'd suggest to call it, for example, 'fragment'. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
6 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
224e1913909c
From public domain to copyleft, insert a couple phrases about permissive licensing, as alternative for public domain and as intention to enforce certain conditions. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
5 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
c4f446cc833b
Removed extra word. Fully copyrightable = copyrightable, right? Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
4 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
5b18f9e927e3
Nitpicking, there aren't only two types, those by the license and those breaking the license, but also those covered by limitations/exemptions in copyright law. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
3 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
dde19a6fb5ff
'Licensed not sold' is a disputable and disputed fallacy, cf. for example B. Carver, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1586580 and many others. I'd suggest to avoid it. There is no need for it: Free Software offers all rights to enjoy the software in the privacy of one's home without doing anything special (arguably even when enjoying rights under copyright, but privately), it's distribution that triggers obligations. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
2 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
bdddb68089ed
Add footnote on automatic licensing provision. There is a widespread assumption in free licensing work that permissions come from the copyright holders -always-. This assumption is not unwarranted; among other reasons, because there is a 'fundamental distinction in copyright law' (Nimmer) between material object and intellectual content. Even if the distribution chain would give rights (which is not the perception in free licensing), and even if someone on this chain would lose their rights (terminated), downstream (also) has the license from the (c) holder to get their rights from as long as they fulfill the conditions themselves. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
1 2015-04-03 03:06:38
enyst
dfb563868de6
Modified works are derivative works, they are under the scope of 106 (2) (while they are under 106 (1) as well). I assume the intention here was to clarify they're the easy case of derivative works? That seems important and correct. Proposed a few tweaks to express this idea without implying that modified works are not derivative works. Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
0 files changed
No files
Changeset was too big and was cut off... Show full diff anyway

Changeset was too big and was cut off... Show full diff anyway

1 comment (0 inline, 1 general)
engel nyst (enyst)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "Various contributions"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review