discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
jdd ####@####.####
Date:
27 Sep 2008 08:04:03 +0100
Message-Id: <48DDDAB7.4090602@dodin.org>
Rick Moen a écrit :
> Far from complicating anyone's life or imposing burdens, that made
> recipients' lives easier, by meeting the reciprocal (copyleft)
> obligation in either of two, equally sufficient ways.
problem many people, including wikipedia authors don't understand this
like that. and to use anything you have to understand what it means!
the real question is: is this mandatory? is this even usefull? why do
you think it necessary to not trust people having spent years in
writing licences?
Franckly, I see all this licencing issue as a mess (not your position,
the more general problem). so many different licences that are said
equivallent, why? why can't the open source community come to an
agreement. I saw at the time the creative common creation as a
blessing, but it seems to have only complicated the system, adding
even more licences, without making the others obsolete.
all this gives the problem we have now: we don't know if we can update
the HOWTOs.
*this is the problem*. How many HOWTO's authors can expect money from
them? what do most of them think proprietary owners can make money
with them? so why bother so much in the (free) licence used?
this may be why the widely accessible wikis with no identified
authors, advertisements and restrictive licence are today
mainstream... good result!!
>> 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"
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
good
> That is true -- _but_ they made clear that they aren't happy with it.
> (Many, many people feel this way about GFDL.
is there any single licence that makes anybody happy. If so I would
vote for it without problem. But I don't think this exists.
> this time for _this_ mess?") Rubini and Terry _are_ happy with their
> existing choice of GPLv2 or later licensing.
we could then keep it.
If only 6 (or so) licences are accepted by the LDP, we could at least
sort the HOWTOs by licence use and work on these groups separately, if
necessary.
any combination of any of these licences makes only things more
complicated for us
> If Sergiusz says he has problems with GPLv2, I will eat my hat.
> On-camera. Without condiments.
it's not even a "problem". The problem is the number of licences.
if there are so many licences acceptable, I beg there are differences?
when diffs are small it's even more difficult to understand them.
may be a licencing HOWTO is necessary :-)
so apart if you can give me the name of an universally accepted
licence that is not was is decribed in our default one, I think we can
stop here.
thanks
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM
