Anyone interested on a Trisquel Gnu/Linux Forum Android application ?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
You specify the license for art (or any other copyrightable work in fact) in the same way as you do for software: include a file containing the copyright notice. Of course, you want to be clear about what file is under what license (like in "every file in the "data" repertory, and its sub-directories, is distributed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license; the other files are distributed under the GPLv3 license").
As Michał Masłowski wrote, trademarks have nothing to do with copyrights. The purpose of trademarks is to identify products, whereas copyrights protect the contents. Different laws rule them. Many free software projects (e.g., the Linux kernel) have trademarks on their names/logo. In this way, the user knows what she is using (nobody else can use the name/logo).
For instance, Mozilla does not want users to be fooled downloading something called Firefox, having the same logo, but being, in fact, Firefox + a backdoor. This does not conflict with the free software definition: the users still have the same freedoms. They simply have to change the name and the logo if they distribute a derivative work.
That is why Trisquel has Abrowser "instead of" Firefox. Indeed, the project modifies the Web browser, as shipped by Mozilla, to make it not suggest any proprietary plugin and to make it use a different extension site. I do not think Debian modifies Mozilla's products but Debian developers want to be able to fix bugs before Mozilla does (I do not know whether it ever happened). Doing so requires as well a change in the name and the logo. As for Ubuntu, I guess Mozilla's products are never modified. However it is also possible that Mozilla has specifically allowed Canonical to use their trademarks even if they make modifications (a specific contract).
> This does not conflict with the free software
> definition: the users still have the same freedoms. They simply have
> to change the name and the logo if they distribute a derivative work.
To distribute a derivative work they first have to make some changes.
To sell a CD with the program they wouldn't have to modify it if not for
the trademark policy. Brett Smith considered this requirement making it
nonfree [0].
> I do not think Debian modifies Mozilla's product but
> Debian developers want to be able to fix bugs before Mozilla does (I
> do not know whether it ever happened).
They do many changes [1], Parabola used IceWeasel with IceCat's addon
list for the MIPS compatibility.
> As for Ubuntu, I guess they never
> modify Mozilla's products. However it is also possible that Mozilla
> has specifically allowed Canonical to use their trademarks even if
> they make modifications (a specific contract).
[2] links to a *.debian.tar.gz file with Ubuntu patches. Fedora has/had
a similar agreement (weren't security fixes delayed due to it?).
[0] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html
[1] http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/iceweasel/15.0.1-1
[2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/firefox
"[...] but what would be our world without BSD and Apple ? Better ? Worse ?" --aliasbody
"But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing." --RMS.
I suppose RMS does not need Apple OSX or iphone. I don't need those either. Never have had anything Apple and probably never will.*
Edit: I could argue that the world would be better without Apple. Without Apple MS might charge more of its producs, which in turn could move more people to Free Software, and those disliking MS so much that they use Apple could use FS.
Choise is good but dunno how many proprietary OS choises is good.
* Lets rather say that HOPEFULLY I don't ever need anything Apple. Hopefully they don't manage to implement something stupid but what is required for something and thus manage to force me to use their products even if I would not have to buy their products since someone would have to buy it for me to use.
So, please Apple, don't "innovate" anything.
I totally agree that it isn't an excuse (even if it helps Gnu/Linux and the Free Software world, by going unethical and creating/using proprietary software), but what would be the Gnu/Linux printing without Cups ? (It seriously think that it could be better but I can be wrong).
Webkit anyone? I know they didn't invent what it was based on (KHTML), but they made it mainstream and put it out there for everyone to tinker with. Webkit is now a highly used rendering engine that powers Chromium/Chrome and Safari.
Are you saying Apple invented CUPS?
FWIW I'll add my opinion on licensing:
I'll accept any Free Software license. If two similar software packages are licensed under permissive and copyleft licenses, I'll choose the best one in terms of quality.
When it comes to choosing a license for my own projects, I would /probably/ choose the GPL. I believe copyleft is good because it prevents proprietary forks from occurring, even if they don't occur very often.
I believe that if enough people believed in Free Software then this issue would be irrelevant. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Because many users are enticed into using proprietary software, those companies are able to exert power over those people and lock them in. Copyleft aims to stop this. Unfortunately copyleft complicates things slightly, which is the common argument for permissive software.
aliasbody, if you're still reading this thread: if I had a mobile phone I would be happy to use your software no matter the Free Software license you use. :)
Thank you for your support :D
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios