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:
"Martin A. Brown" ####@####.####
Date:
3 Feb 2016 18:24:14 +0000
Message-Id: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602031010310.2025@znpeba.jbaqresebt.arg>
[snipped J.S. Evans from Cc line]
Hello again David (et alia),
>I took a quick look at by-nc-sa/4.0/ and it looks OK.
Great. Thanks! [Mark: Can you add that to the list of accepted?]
>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.
I noticed that not only do we have several manifestos:
http://tldp.org/manifesto.html
http://tldp.org/manifesto_24Jul2003.html
http://tldp.org/manifesto_18Oct1999.html
http://wiki.tldp.org/LDP%20Manifesto
But, we also have at least two pages declaring copyright:
http://tldp.org/copyright.html
http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
Also, I think there are several places where accepted licenses are
listed. It'd be good to get that into a single place, so that there
are not discrepancies.
>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.
OK. So latest one rules the roost. Good to know. I propose that
once we iron all of this out, that we expunge (from reachability)
any old manifesto, license and/or copyright text.
>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 acomplished. 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'm on board, so long as we do not substantively change the
following:
The goal of the Linux Documentation Project (LDP) is to create and
distribute a canonical set of high quality free GNU/Linux
documentation.
Once we figure out what exactly we want (or need) to change in the
manifesto, license and copyright, then I will volunteer to try to
expunge all of the out-of-date stuff.
N.B. Also, this will probably imply a need to perform a consistency
review over all of the various LDP-specific docs (LDP-Author-Guide,
LDP-Reviewer-Guide, LDP-Admin-Guide, LDP Wiki and tldp.org website).
>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.
I would say, go for it. We can get started and Serge can review at
his leisure when he returns.
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/
