discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
jdd ####@####.####
Date:
26 Sep 2008 21:46:23 +0100
Message-Id: <48DD49F4.3000806@dodin.org>
Rick Moen a écrit :
>> many maintainer of documentation asks us what licence they have to
>> use. I think we must have a simple answer
>
> {shrug} I'm just trying to discourage you from advocating any "simple
> answer" that injures LDP's interests -- and also pointing out that
> licensing and copyright law cannot be rendered "simple" just because one
> finds complexity inconvenient.
?? you know what simple answer I mean, it's
1) preferably the default (GFDL without...) licence
2) any of the other quoted licence, and one only
>
> Most pointless complexity can be avoided by accepting only documents
> under reasonably licences of known characteristics in the first place,
> and then accepting back only patches offered under the upstream licence.
of course
> Uniform licensing across LDP's entire collection is not necessary
> towards that goal, and attempting to achieve it would _very_ likely mean
> eschewing good documentation for no compelling reason.
I don't see why. I never said we should to reject any document, this
is only your words.
> Oh, please. My full quotation was: "The Software Freedom Law Center --
> one of the few that I really respect (though one must always be aware
> that they push the FSF agenda)"
>
> Why are you now surprised that I am saying that they push the FSF
> agenda, when that's literally, precisely, exactly what I said the first
> time?
sorry, for me "free agenda" is http://www.agendadulibre.org/.
vocabulary problem only.
>
>> so, any of the 6 (not 5) licences listed here:
>> http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence/comments
>> allow us to work as expected?
>
> In my view, certainly.[1]
good!
>> what about licences written by the author? shoul we reject them (I
>> think of the boiler plate previous LDP licence
>> http://tldp.org/manifesto.html)
>
> I don't know about you, but there are limits to my time and effort
> available for dealing with gratuitous problems. So, if someone says to
> me "Hi, I want to contribute material to your project, but decline to
> use any of the traditional and well-understood licences, and instead
> want to use something I've custom-written", I would tend to lose
> interest and spend my limited volunteer time doing other things.
speaking of previous LDP boiler plate licence, we will have probably
to cope with it from time to time. I don't know why it was writtent in
the first place.
But I'm ready to accept to say: "please can you use the default
licence if possible, any of the quoted licence if you really prefere,
but if you have a very important work under any other free licence, we
may accept it after discussion"
> I mentioned the idea to Senthil to solve a particular problem that he
> described, where the HOWTO authors of record prefer GPLv2 and dislike
> GFDL,
but said they where ready to accept it!
here I quote the OP (of the other thread)
"Both Rubini and Terry, expressed some displeasure with GFDL
(espcially with its clause of invariant sections), but are fine with
relicensing the docs, "should we need it".
Two questions:
1) Do we need to relicense them? If yes, we have the permission. "
and the default licence don't have the invarient section, so it seems
to me it mostly comply with authors demand
and where -- for reasons I still cannot understand but probably
> approximate "Let's do what Wikipedia does" -- most posters on this
> thread profess to like GFDL.
first advice here
http://lists.tldp.org/go.to?list=discuss&cmd=showmsg&msgnum=11093
and this probably mean less problems with debian :-?
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM
