[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]

From: Joshua Gay
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:52:52 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0

On 05/29/2015 11:08 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay <> wrote:
>> On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> Yoni,
>>> I and others made very clear and practical points about why your
>>> decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are
>>> incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you.
>> This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail
>> added in to address your previous reply.
>> I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says "free
>> software" to say "open source" and adjust sentences accordingly. I then
>> state on the cover of my book: "This is the official and definitive
>> translation of Richard Stallman's work".
> Hmmmm.
>>  While I might be in compliance
>> with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a
>> misrepresentation of Stallman and his work.
> I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in
> compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the
> summary of 4.0:
> "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
> license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
> reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
> endorses you or your use."
> And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine):
> "No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be
> construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your
> use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored,
> endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others
> designated to receive attribution as provided in Section
> 3(a)(1)(A)(i)."

What I wrote certainly does not state that Richard Stallman endorses the
translation. It just says it is an official and definitive translation.
Who says it is official is obviously me and not the original author. If
I called it an authorized translation or a translation endorsed by the
author, then that would seem like a violation of the license.

Joshua Gay
Licensing & Compliance Manager  <>
Free Software Foundation        <>
GPG key ID: 8DA625BB            What's a GPG key ID?
                                See our Email Self-Defense Guide:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]