Re: [O] Org-mode exporters licensing

[Robert Klein]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:49:05 +0200
Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> On 2015-07-27, at 20:30, Daniele Nicolodi <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On 27/07/15 20:20, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >> 
> >> On 2015-07-27, at 20:02, Daniele Nicolodi <address@hidden>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 27/07/15 19:42, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >>>> That I've already learned.  OTOH, one of the reasons to use PD
> >>>> might be that I explicitly state that I object the legal system
> >>>> I live in.  (Mind you: I'm not an anarchist, and I'm very far
> >>>> from that.  But this system is almost unbearable.)
> >>>
> >>> This statement confirms that you do not really understand what
> >>> you are talking about: as you cannot renounce your copy rights,
> >>> you cannot place something in the public domain. If you do not
> >>> release your work with an explicit license, the default copyright
> >>> protection law applies and this means (in all jurisdictions I
> >>> know about) that you reserve all rights to yourself: none can use
> >>> your code, and probably not even look at it.
> >> 
> >> I do understand (at least I think so).  And I do understand that my
> >> declaration of putting something in PD would be technically void.
> >> I just don't care about it, if the declaration of intent is clear.
> >
> > If you do not care about the terms in which who receives your work
> > is able to use it, why all the discussion?
> >
> > I thought that you were arguing that a less strict license than the
> > GPL is better for the content of a possible tutorial and you were
> > inquiring if you could release your code derived or inspired from
> > GPL code with another license. Now you say that you do not care, or
> > better you say that you do not want to give any rights to who
> > receives your code.
> >
> > I think you are confused.
> 
> I was unclear again, sorry.
> 
> 1. As for my planned tutorial: I am reconciled with the idea that it
> might have to be GPL'd.  Though I still maintain that GPL is not an
> optimal license for such work.
> 
> 2. As for other code I might write and publish: I'm tempted to use the
> Unlicense (which is basically more or less putting it into the PD),
> even though it might (technically) be void.
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Daniele

FWIW, what Richard Lawrence posted in the other threat sounds good.  

Please feel free to use my material I posted to the list
(see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-06/msg00160.html)
I mostly copied the export function in the example from org-mode, but
the rest you may use as you like.

Best regards
Robert