Comments for A freely licensed adventure http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito Exploring free licenses and their practical uses Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:21:15 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Wikipedia and the GFDL by Roy Roebuck http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/01/wikipedia-and-the-gfdl/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Roy Roebuck Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:21:15 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/01/wikipedia-and-the-gfdl/#comment-13 In my limited understanding of the whole CC topic, since the CC-BY-SA license is of copyrighted material (whether legally registered as copyright or not), can't the copyrighted material also be separately licensed for non-BY-SA use, such as a commercial variant that is rebranded and includes added value? If the above is a correct assessment of rebranding copyrighted material, even if under CC-BY-SA, how would this affect copyrighted material previously posted to Wikipedia, or future Wikipedia material, or alternatively, to the Citizentium material? In my limited understanding of the whole CC topic, since the CC-BY-SA license is of copyrighted material (whether legally registered as copyright or not), can’t the copyrighted material also be separately licensed for non-BY-SA use, such as a commercial variant that is rebranded and includes added value?

If the above is a correct assessment of rebranding copyrighted material, even if under CC-BY-SA, how would this affect copyrighted material previously posted to Wikipedia, or future Wikipedia material, or alternatively, to the Citizentium material?

]]> Comment on Free software licenses by keito http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-4 keito Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:26:02 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/#comment-4 achates, thank you for the corrections. You're right about both -- the first, the GPL specifically mentions even in the preamble ("...we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."). The second, the GPL also clearly states ("You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.") This is what many companies already do, with GPL-licensed products like the GIMP and Linux itself. (Although what they are usually selling are support or extra features or refinements to the original software.) achates, thank you for the corrections. You’re right about both — the first, the GPL specifically mentions even in the preamble (”…we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.”). The second, the GPL also clearly states (”You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.”) This is what many companies already do, with GPL-licensed products like the GIMP and Linux itself. (Although what they are usually selling are support or extra features or refinements to the original software.)

]]> Comment on Free software licenses by achates http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-3 achates Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:07:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/#comment-3 The statement of the patent restrictions is incorrect. You can patent GPLed software, but you have to grant a license to all users of the software. Also, the statement that "all licensed copies cannot be sold for profit" is incorrect, there is no restriction on selling GPLed software for a profit, so long as the license restrictions are met. In practical terms, this makes it hard to make a profit on direct sales (since any downstream licensee can compete at any price it likes), but the license permits you to try. The statement of the patent restrictions is incorrect. You can patent GPLed software, but you have to grant a license to all users of the software.

Also, the statement that “all licensed copies cannot be sold for profit” is incorrect, there is no restriction on selling GPLed software for a profit, so long as the license restrictions are met. In practical terms, this makes it hard to make a profit on direct sales (since any downstream licensee can compete at any price it likes), but the license permits you to try.

]]> Comment on Free software licenses by FreeSoftNews » Blog Archive » Free software licenses http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/comment-page-1/#comment-2 FreeSoftNews » Blog Archive » Free software licenses Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:12:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/keito/2008/01/07/free-software-licenses/#comment-2 [...] Read more …. [...] [...] Read more …. [...]

]]>