1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, at 09:11 CDT, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under |
4 |
> trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the |
5 |
> "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC |
6 |
> LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the |
7 |
> latter. |
8 |
|
9 |
What? |
10 |
|
11 |
No, this is *not* how it works. |
12 |
|
13 |
A license text is an original piece of work that falls under copyright |
14 |
protection. In this case the copyright holder is the |
15 |
|
16 |
»The Linux Foundation and its contributors«. |
17 |
|
18 |
The terms of distribution are |
19 |
|
20 |
»Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this |
21 |
license document, but changing it is not allowed.« |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
You cannot simply copy a substantial amount of text into your work (no |
26 |
matter what it is) if you do not have the right to do so. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
> The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, |
31 |
> which we would of course abide by. |
32 |
|
33 |
I highly doubt that, see my previous e-mail. |
34 |
|
35 |
Best, |
36 |
Matthias |