discuss: Thread: Q: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ was [New Guide: Package Management Basics]

Hello discuss,

[particularly Rick Moen and David Lawyer, if present]

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/

> On Jan 28, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Martin A. Brown ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> 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

Just submitted an update.  Looks like CC SA has been retired so I’ve removed that as well and updated CC BY-SA to point to 4.0.

Also started updating documentation to use git.  I’m figuring this out quickly so I think there will be other updates soon.

-Mark

Hello there,

>> 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
>
>Just submitted an update. 

Great!  Thank you!

>Looks like CC SA has been retired so I’ve removed that as well and 
>updated CC BY-SA to point to 4.0.

DFSG seems to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the 
acceptable category.

I would still like to hear from our license aficionados.

The question remains about TLDP's position on accepting documents 
licensed with CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0.

>Also started updating documentation to use git.  I’m figuring this 
>out quickly so I think there will be other updates soon.

OK, very good.  If anybody else has suggestions for workflow, 
tools, links, concepts or even books around git, now is a great time 
to holler.

I think that, in the LDP-Author-Guide, we should, at least, point 
out that it is not required to get a github.com account to send us 
patches.  The old submit@ address can be resurrected and we can take 
patches there.  This is the wonderful thing about a DVCS.  No 
lock-in!

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 03:47:44 PM Martin A. Brown wrote:

 
> 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?

As a side note that I meant to mention earlier but forgot. I spoke with the 
community manager at DigitalOcean and they are more than happy for use to use 
their tutorials on TLDP. Most are very up to date and well written. My idea 
was to take some of the more general ones, remove any DigitalOcean-centric 
steps (i.e. open an account with us) and upload them to TLDP while giving full 
credit to the authors and a link to the original document. 

The catch (well, sort of) is that all of their tutorials and guides are under 
the https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ license.

Jason

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

[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/

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Martin A. Brown ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> 
> [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?]

Done (thanks David).  There’s a mention of an LDP license that is currently under review.  Should we just drop that in favor of one of the others that already exist?

> 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.

That sounds like a good idea.  I can change the LAG to point there, or use the LAG as the canonical location.  I’m good either way.

-Mark

Hello,

>>> 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?]
>
>Done (thanks David).  There’s a mention of an LDP license that is 
>currently under review.  Should we just drop that in favor of one 
>of the others that already exist?

Unsure.

Additional information:  A few years ago, jdd and mhydra created a 
wiki page tracking contact with individual authors and listing also 
the license of every one of our documents.

  http://wiki.tldp.org/Page_Status

>> 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.
>
>That sounds like a good idea.  I can change the LAG to point there, 
>or use the LAG as the canonical location.  I’m good either way.

OK.  For now, I'll simply enqueue this task (identifying locations 
where accepted licenses are listed and canonifying them).  If 
somebody grabs it, great; I'll be watching here.

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/