Re: Re: What license for Worg?

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de>]

Am 04.08.2010 07:36, schrieb Bastien:
> Or we might also consider CC0:
>
>    http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> It looks way more simple to me.
>
> It also circumvents the problem of people having to sign the FSF papers
> if the Org/Emacs manuals include part of the code they contributed to
> Worg as examples.
>
> What people think?
>


Hi Bastien,

that's an interesting proposal, I'm glad seeing you
reflecting the matter.

Please permet first clarifying a little bit: we can't
speek of FSF papers as such, it's very different one.

The FSF disclaimer is perfectly ok IMO and should be
sufficient for any distributor.

The other paper, obliging the author to indemnities
towards the FSF even in cases of false accusations,
stipulating US-courts and US-law as the only
relevant, is a human rights violation.

Bien sure, that hat not been the intention of RMS and
the other developers. Nonetheless, in fact it's not
different from the famous Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which
first time in newer history stipulated US-law for all
the others too.

Copyright assignment is an essay not to defend, but to
attack. It trys software as a weapon. This deplorable
idea we see inside the GPL too BTW, marking a cultural
gab between post-communist Europe and US.

In consideration which was said above, your proposal
probably will not be accepted by FSF, as a non-existing
copyright can't be assigned any more. :-)

CC to RMS.

Andreas

--
https://code.launchpad.net/~a-roehler/python-mode
https://code.launchpad.net/s-x-emacs-werkstatt/