Hi, the thread discussing licenses for the Wiki content (and maybe for other documentation coming from the CentOS project) somehow slept in during discussion. That's why I want to reopen discussion: So far we found 4 licenses which should be inspected a little bit deeper (pros and cons are from me). This is if we *want* to have the content in the wiki under some form of license. The Creative Commons license which CC suggests for wikis: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> Pro: Easy to understand, easy to embed. Three-Layer system: Easy user readable license backed by a license for lawyers and a machine readable part (can be searched for by google and yahoo, for example. Available for ~70 different jurisdictions/countries Con: The FSF begs you to stay away from these licenses for documentations GFDL - The GNU Free Documentation License: <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html> Con: It's legalese at its best. I have read it a few times now and still don't understand it. FreeBSD Documentation license <http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html> Pro: Seems fairly easy to understand Con: Seems to be written especially for Documentation in book format. Opencontent license <http://opencontent.org/openpub/> Pro: Seems fairly easy Con: I've never heard of this up until now (which doesn't have to mean anything Are there any people with some law background in the house? Opinions, please. Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061027/326b3b97/s...
Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Opinions, please. Anyone? Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061103/efe3cd16/a...
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 11:01 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > Opinions, please. > > Anyone? > Personally, I think openpub is the best choice. It is what Red Hat and Fedora Core use on all their documentation. It does require (though) a page that tracks version/revision with the author listed, so may not be easily doable for a wiki. It is what the "Managing Software with Yum" doc is licensed under (for example): http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/yum/ Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061103/d4a96f7c/a...
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 06:16 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 11:01 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > > Opinions, please. > > > > Anyone? > > > > Personally, I think openpub is the best choice. It is what Red Hat and > Fedora Core use on all their documentation. > > It does require (though) a page that tracks version/revision with the > author listed, so may not be easily doable for a wiki. > > It is what the "Managing Software with Yum" doc is licensed under (for > example): > > http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/yum/ OK ... so I lied :) The yum doc is released under this license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html (Another one to look at) :) All the RH and FC official documentation is openpub though ... Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061103/d4ca54ee/a...
Johnny Hughes wrote: > The yum doc is released under this license: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html We already had that - and I still think it is too complicated (especially if neither english nor legalese are your native language). >:) Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061103/ac741b28/a...
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: >> The yum doc is released under this license: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html > > We already had that - and I still think it is too complicated > (especially if neither english nor legalese are your native > language). While I understand the general need for a license, I'm unclear what consensus exists (if any) about the goals for the one chosen to govern the CentOS wiki. Some questions are more obvious than others: * Can people freely reprint the texts as-is, or does it make a difference if they're trying to make a profit on the works? * Can people freely reprint altered versions of the texts? If so, what sort of attestation is necessary to delineate the boundary between the original text and the published version? * Do the original authors have to be mentioned by name in reprints? How about the CentOS project and/or wiki? I suppose there are plenty of less-obvious questions, but getting a simple consensus on the ones above would perhaps clarify what license is required. For me, I like the intention of the Create Commons "Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike" license: people are free to copy and make derivative works of a text as long as they attribute the work and release it under similar terms. Anyone wishing to profit from the text needs the explicit permission of the copyright holder. I'm interested to know what rights others are expecting the chose license to protect. -- Paul Heinlein <> heinlein@madboa.com <> www.madboa.com
> * Can people freely reprint the texts as-is, or does it make a > difference if they're trying to make a profit on the works? As far as I am concerned, people can make a profit out of it, as long as the result is copylefted. > * Do the original authors have to be mentioned by name in reprints? > How about the CentOS project and/or wiki? This is a tough question. The questions is whether contributors attribute their copyrights to the CentOS project or not. > For me, I like the intention of the Create Commons "Attribution > NonCommercial ShareAlike" license: people are free to copy and make > derivative works of a text as long as they attribute the work and > release it under similar terms. Anyone wishing to profit from the text > needs the explicit permission of the copyright holder. As I don't mind for-profit use of my contributions, I'd prefer the GFDL or the CC "Attribution Share Alike". I also believe that these two licenses are most in the spirit of the GPL, which governs a large part of CentOS. With kind regards, Daniel de Kok
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 11:00 -0500, danieldk@pobox.com wrote: > > * Can people freely reprint the texts as-is, or does it make a > > difference if they're trying to make a profit on the works? > > As far as I am concerned, people can make a profit out of it, as long as > the result is copylefted. I have no issue with this at all ... I'm all for making money as long as it is also available free :P > > > * Do the original authors have to be mentioned by name in reprints? > > How about the CentOS project and/or wiki? > > This is a tough question. The questions is whether contributors attribute > their copyrights to the CentOS project or not. WRT original authors ... I think that they can (and should) retain the copyright. So long as it is licensed in such a way that the CentOS Project (or anyone else for that matter) and publish it and distribute it in in electronic or printed form ... and can use it as a basis for modification to build their own. > > > For me, I like the intention of the Create Commons "Attribution > > NonCommercial ShareAlike" license: people are free to copy and make > > derivative works of a text as long as they attribute the work and > > release it under similar terms. Anyone wishing to profit from the text > > needs the explicit permission of the copyright holder. > I have no issue with that ... but the FSF says that one should avoid that license and that it is pretty much worthless. Not sure if it is or not, that is just what FSF says. > As I don't mind for-profit use of my contributions, I'd prefer the GFDL or > the CC "Attribution Share Alike". I also believe that these two licenses > are most in the spirit of the GPL, which governs a large part of CentOS. I like GFDL ... but I am not a lawyer, so I am unsure if it is best :) Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061106/efe45693/a...
Johnny Hughes wrote: > I have no issue with that ... but the FSF says that one should avoid > that license and that it is pretty much worthless. Not sure if it is or > not, that is just what FSF says. AFAIK the started to take stance against the license when CC moved from just promoting their copyleft license to promoting multiple licenses, some of which are not copyleft licenses. So, I think the primary differences are ethical views[1]. Maybe it is best to get some external advice? -- Daniel [1] Maybe these people can help?: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
danieldk@pobox.com wrote: > AFAIK the started to take stance against the license when CC moved from > just promoting their copyleft license to promoting multiple licenses, some > of which are not copyleft licenses. So, I think the primary differences > are ethical views[1]. > > Maybe it is best to get some external advice? Like sending a mail to Moglen and to Lessig and let them sort it out? SCNR, Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061107/f9345a66/a...
Ralph Angenendt wrote: > danieldk@pobox.com wrote: > > AFAIK the started to take stance against the license when CC moved from > > just promoting their copyleft license to promoting multiple licenses, some > > of which are not copyleft licenses. So, I think the primary differences > > are ethical views[1]. > > > > Maybe it is best to get some external advice? > > Like sending a mail to Moglen and to Lessig and let them sort it out? Oh, didn't see the link in your mail. Moglen and Lessig are directors of the Software Freedom Law Center. Hmm. There goes my joke ... Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061107/42b24d51/a...
Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> danieldk@pobox.com wrote: >> > AFAIK the started to take stance against the license when CC moved >> from >> > just promoting their copyleft license to promoting multiple licenses, >> some >> > of which are not copyleft licenses. So, I think the primary >> differences >> > are ethical views[1]. >> > >> > Maybe it is best to get some external advice? >> >> Like sending a mail to Moglen and to Lessig and let them sort it out? > > Oh, didn't see the link in your mail. Moglen and Lessig are directors of > the Software Freedom Law Center. Hmm. There goes my joke ... :), no fireworks this time ;). -- Daniel