5 ms·

Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody inte

by davisp 17y ago

Also, on a more serious note, that was my exact argument. If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation? I've said before that I would be fine with a "DERIVATIVES UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES" clause, but that's not how I interpreted the clause absolutely no training in law.

akrito 17y ago
> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation? I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues
- davisp 17y ago
  Whats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Yes, exactly. The license clause can only be enforced because of copyright law, and fair use is allowed for by the copyright law. The rights given to you by the law supersede anything a license says, because without that law, the license would be completely meaningless. (In theory, the reason EULAs work is because when you run the program, you are copying it from disk to RAM. This is why they are believed to be very shaky, as copyright law does not specifically consider copying from disk to RAM inside a black box to be "copying". The GPL is on firmer ground, because it covers copying for distribution to other people. That is a situation that copyright law is specific about.)
  - davisp 17y ago
    LOL, WHUT? This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to have an actual opinion.
swixmix 17y ago
You are allowed to create a derivative of the license for your own use. But you are not allowed to modify an existing license document someone is already using with their code.
- davisp 17y ago
  I'm not arguing this at all, that would be 'relicensing' AFAIK. My post was about changing the text of the AGPL itself. And my entire post was that I read that first clause and then thought, "WTF? Can I even make a funny blog post?" and then it became a funny blog post (to me) about me wondering if I could make a funny blog post. Granted, that's not the first time this conversation has included the (to me) specifier so I may be in the minority on the amusement on this one.

by davisp 17y ago

akrito 17y ago

> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation? I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues

davisp 17y ago
Whats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.
jrockway 17y ago
Yes, exactly. The license clause can only be enforced because of copyright law, and fair use is allowed for by the copyright law. The rights given to you by the law supersede anything a license says, because without that law, the license would be completely meaningless. (In theory, the reason EULAs work is because when you run the program, you are copying it from disk to RAM. This is why they are believed to be very shaky, as copyright law does not specifically consider copying from disk to RAM inside a black box to be "copying". The GPL is on firmer ground, because it covers copying for distribution to other people. That is a situation that copyright law is specific about.)
- davisp 17y ago
  LOL, WHUT? This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to have an actual opinion.

swixmix 17y ago

You are allowed to create a derivative of the license for your own use. But you are not allowed to modify an existing license document someone is already using with their code.

davisp 17y ago
I'm not arguing this at all, that would be 'relicensing' AFAIK. My post was about changing the text of the AGPL itself. And my entire post was that I read that first clause and then thought, "WTF? Can I even make a funny blog post?" and then it became a funny blog post (to me) about me wondering if I could make a funny blog post. Granted, that's not the first time this conversation has included the (to me) specifier so I may be in the minority on the amusement on this one.