[PD] open source Pd workshops

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Marc Lavallée wrote:
> 
>>another point: except for japanese jurisdiction, the licenses have not
>>been adapted to national laws. 
> 
> 
> That's good news from Japan, but it doesn't prove that the GPL is invalid 
> elsewhere; it was carefully crafted to not require adaptation to national 
> laws.

i think pi was referring to the CC-licenses not to the GPL.

> 
> 
>>in fact i am quite sure that they aren't  worth anything in europe. there 
>>have been some cases proving that GPL is valid in germany - 
> 
> 
> Most people don't go to court when violating the GPL, because it's difficult 
> to win against it; the NetFilter vs Sitecom case is a good example.

even though probably no-one will go to court when a free-license is 
violated, it is still important that there is some legal background .


> 
>>yet it took many years and thousands of files licensed under it to make it 
>>"established law" - the situation is different with CC.
> 
> 
> I don't see much differences since the CC promote the use of free licenses.
> Are you suggesting to wait many years before using the CC licenses?

not necessarily.
pi just points out, that it took years for the GPL to become established 
law. successor-licenses (like CC) will most probably get "established" 
much faster.

now the circulus vitiosus is, that the CC will never get "established" 
when no-one uses it because it is not "established".

but i do think, that there must be no doubt that the chosen license is 
compatible with the documenter's national law - and this includes 
(besides japan) of course, the US-law and (which is particularily 
important for me) european law. (and of course all the others i have no 
time nor knowledge to mention)

> 
> 
>>but maybe it is better to chose a CC license than any more obscure or
>>no at all or an inapplicable (like GPL afaik).
> 
> 
> The GPL is very simple: it makes any user not respecting it a counterfeiter.
> It might be difficult to understand (like most licenses), but not to apply.


the question is rather (as i understand it, and i am not an expert with 
licensing at all): can the GPL be applied to documentation (read: 
articles, manuals,...) at all ? it is not meant for this type of texts, 
that is why they have written the GFDL.


mfg.asd.r
IOhannes