wiki: Thread: Re: license for tldp

Is there plan to update the license of the TLDP wiki to
CC-BY-SA<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>soon?

This is now possible because of an agreement between Creative Commons, FSF
and the Wikimedia Foundation. This is important as the majority of open
online content is CC-BY-SA rather than GFDL, especially as Wikimedia is
taking steps to change to the CC-BY-SA license. This would enable the wiki
to share information more easily with other sites, including blogs.

The cutoff date is about August this year, after which GFDL content cannot
be changed, so it will be will be cut off in a backwater.

The CC license has advantages in simplicity. It also gives the ability to
print a physical copy without having to include all the pages of the license
(a link will do).

Considering the use in software manuals, I could understand a choice of dual
license, like the one being considered for Wikipedia, but being able to
share with CC-BY-SA content would be valuable.

A few links here<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL>give
you more info.


The current license - http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence -  is a
little unclear to me: "On any LDP Web site page where no other licence
applies expressly, the following applies: " followed by the GFDL statement.
So if there is another license statement, is that in addition to or instead
of the GFDL?

Cheers,
Chris
-- 
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es



-- 
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es

Chris Watkins a écrit :

> The current license - http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence -  is a
> little unclear to me: "On any LDP Web site page where no other licence
> applies expressly, the following applies: " followed by the GFDL statement.
> So if there is another license statement, is that in addition to or instead
> of the GFDL?

instead. Normally, the default apply only to the housekeeping pages,
the HOWTOs should have a clearly defined licence.

jdd


-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1412160445

I would be in favor of making the CC-BY-SA  license the "default", or
a dual-licensing scheme the default. And converting to CC,  provided
the licenses can be compatible. And there are not serious objections
to the CC-BY-SA license by authors...

CC-BY-SA  doesn't have provisions for non-free things like "cover" texts
and invariant sections the GFDL allows to be added to documents.  In
that respect it's better protection, and "more free" than the GFDL.


And yes,  the GFDL requirement to publish the license is a bit
unwieldy, primarily
because the GFDL is such a big license.   IMO it should be little
issue to publish a short/brief  license  like the CC-BY-SA  in most
howtos.


But the GFDL is a 10-page document that could be bigger than some HOWTOs.



i.e.  Suppose someone wanted to  make a print book  containing a few
documents  from the TLDP.

Would it be an issue if some  of were GFDL and some were CC?

Probably not, if they met the GFDL requirements and no invarient
sections/cover texts were used in any of the works, but it's something
to consider.


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:11 AM, jdd for http://tldp.org ####@####.#### wrote:
> Chris Watkins a écrit :


--
-J

James Hess a écrit :

> Probably not, if they met the GFDL requirements and no invarient
> sections/cover texts were used in any of the works, but it's something
> to consider.

ldp default is GFDL:

"with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover
Texts."

I don't see any problem with this

But as said, the author can perfectly use any
http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence licence.

Publishing the GFDL text is good educational practice

jdd
-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/04/13/people-of-opensuse-jean-daniel-dodin/

Jdd:

Publishing the GFDL text is good educational practice
>

What do you mean?

-- 
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es

Chris Watkins a écrit :
> Jdd:
> 
>     Publishing the GFDL text is good educational practice
> 
> 
> What do you mean?

it's worth reading :-)

jdd

-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/04/13/people-of-opensuse-jean-daniel-dodin/

imho we cannot re-license a text without an author?

s.

GFDL 1.3 <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html> allows relicensing to
CC-BY-SA, by the operators , as long as it's done before August:

An MMC ["Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site"] is "eligible for
relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that
were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and
subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover
texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to
November 1, 2008.

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under
CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the
MMC is eligible for relicensing.

Chris



On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 05:48, Sergiusz Pawlowicz ####@####.####

> imho we cannot re-license a text without an author?
>
> s.
>



-- 
Chris Watkins

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es