Re: [Fsfe-uk] suitable 2-line license for webpages?

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

address@hidden writes:
> I can think of three ways in which someone might want to use someone else's  
> content;
>     *   to copy it (in entirety or selected sections) either verbatim or in  
>         translation 
>     *   to adapt it (or parts of it) for use in a different context 
>     *   to quote short extracts from it to review, discuss or comment.
> 
> Is is possible to request that they state which they have done,

I don't think so, for two reasons.  First, because the lines are blurry, and
second, determining whether the license has been violated would require
reading their text.

The statement I suggested just required that 3 notices be included
(copyright, was-it-modified?, and a link back).

But now that the issue has been raised, I suppose the license notice should
state that those three things should be together in the one place. 

This is really easy to enforce since anyone can just look for the copyright
notice, and if the other two things aren't there, send an email to the
website owner asking them to come into compliance by adding a url and/or a
note that the page has been changed.

> Reference  
> and acknowledge the original source and allow others to do the same?

Yes, these two are part of the text I came up with.

So the notice would now be:

  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in
  any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Copying and distribution of
  works based on this article are permitted, provided that such works carry,
  together in one place, three things: (1) this copyright notice, (2)
  prominent notices stating the that it has been changed, and (3)
  information for how to obtain the original (such as a URL).




-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, _________|   Belfast, Northern Ireland, March 16th
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ |         \\ FOSS Means Business //
http://www.fsfe.org________|      http://foss-means-business.org