discuss: Q: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ was [New Guide: Package Management Basics]
Subject:
Re: Q: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ was [New
Guide: Package Management Basics]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
3 Feb 2016 09:11:18 +0000
Message-Id: <20160203091212.GA2571@daveslinux>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:47:44PM -0800, Martin A. Brown wrote:
>
> Hello discuss,
>
> [particularly Rick Moen and David Lawyer, if present]
I took a quick look at by-nc-sa/4.0/ and it looks OK. The license
criteria for LDP was specified in the manifesto. But we now have two
manifestos: one at www.tldp.org/manifesto.html and another (presumably for
the wiki but it doesn't say that) at wiki.tldp.org/LDP_Manifesto. This
new manifesto has deleted much of the text from the old one (and rightly
so in most cases). But There is a link to license criteria that shows
some acceptable licenses but not the above by-nc-sa. But the LDP criteria
says that if you want to use another license that "we can examine your
arguements". This likely means that the discuss list can examine this
case and decide.
However the old Manifesto, which hasn't been removed would permit use of
this license since it allows free distribution of the document. So if no
one objects, we accept this license. When there are two manifestos, the
later one would be expected to rule.
I'm now volunteering to make another attempt at revision of the Manifesto,
including licensing requirements. My last try was several years ago ran
into strong disagreements so almost nothing was acomplised. I tried to
revise it in steps so that there would be enough time to debate each
aspect of it. I would like to see the licensing criteria restored to the
manifesto itself rather than be included by reference.
I'll post some proposals on Manifesto revision, first on the easy part of
non-license content. I think it should start with review of both the new
and the old (2008) versions of the Manifesto. Of course, before making any
important decisions, we should wait for Serge to return from his vacation
and get his input.
>
> Jason has licensed his document as:
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
>
> I see that this is in the DFSG [0] list. Should it go on TLDP's list of
> accepted licenses, as well?
>
>
>
> Jason,
>
> >It was intentional but an unimportant detail. I can rename the >file
> and re-push it to github.
>
> Right-o.
>
> I will review your Package-Management-Basics.xml document and send you
> feedback privately (by tomorrow midday).
>
>
>
>
> Mark Komarinski,
>
> And, looking for our accepted licenses, I found link rot in this page,
> with regard to the DFSG licenses:
>
> http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html
>
> -Martin
>
> [0] https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
>
> -- Martin A. Brown http://linux-ip.net/
>
> ______________________ http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
David Lawyer
