Talk:Design Science License
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Inclusion of license text
Would it be useful to put the text of the DSL here? It's pretty self-explanatory, when you get down to it. -- April
- Could we use it under the GFDL or under fair use? Then no. And if it is at all long, it probably belongs on Wikisource. --maru (talk) contribs 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can't understand why a copyleft license would be copyrighted. Is this irony? Tomid 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Putting the text dispute to rest
I received this email from GNU.org about the DSL text.
It is true that the Design Science License is regrettably incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. So I think you are right that the copyright holder needs to release the work under the GFDL, public domain, or some compatible license. We certainly hope they do so (we explicitly disrecommend the DSL for documentation for exactly this reason). I'm not sure if you were looking for anything else from GNU? Not knowingly the DSL-covered material you're speaking of, or who the copyright holders are, I'm not sure what more to say at this point ... Best regards, karl@gnu.org Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
This puts to rest the whole issue unless someone goes to the guy who wrote the DSL and gets him to release it as PD or GFDL.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
