Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli <email@example.com> wrote:
> > How about saying "either first or last lines"?
> What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses?
What about "first or last usable lines in the source language"?
> > > The license does not seem to be GPLv2-compatible, as clause 3 is a
> > > weak copyleft constraint: it seems that I cannot combine a page
> > > under this
> > I've removed that one.
> > > If you are going to propose a BSD-style license, I would strongly
> > > recommend the (unmodified) 2-clause BSD license:
> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html
> > The attached license is quite similar to the BSD license with the only
> > differences being that there is no 'binary' form, there's just a
> > compiled form of the site (and explicitly lists some formats which the
> > source might be compiled too).
> This explicit listing of formats is one of the main problems with the
> license you're proposing: it ties things up to specific technical
> details that are really going to become obsolete soon.
> Good licenses try hard to avoid that.
> > In the website is not (c) SPI then
> > our current footer really doesn't make any sense.
> > > > e) from here on access to the CVS of the website should be given
> > > > after
> > > > clearly stating (and getting and agreement) that any and all
> > > > contributions to the CVS, unless specified otherwise with clear
> > > > (c) statements in the code, will be (c) SPI and will be
> > > > considered "work under contract"
> > >
> > > I don't think you can claim it's work under contract, unless there
> > > actually *is* a contract involved!
> > > Voluntary contributions are not "work under contract", AFAICT.
> > The idea of that portion, which might be misunderstood as the wording
> > is not really accurate, is that if volunteers argue they "worked" for
> > SPI for the website development there is no need to have paperwork
> > done for the (c) transfer. If we drop the (c) transfer portion (I'm
> > open to that, if people don't want it to be there) then this should be
> > dropped too.
> > AFAIK (in Spanish legislation at least) volunteer work can be
> > considered work "for contract" (note the quotes) in the sense that you
> > work for a company (a volunteer organisation) for free and you waive
> > the rights to your work to it (including IP rights, and copyrights).
> > Since there is no real written "contract" this does not conflict with
> > the fact that the company you work for (the one you have a contract
> > with) might have stated that you cannot work for others while working
> > for them.
> I don't know if this argument could actually work in Spain.
> I really doubt it can work in *any* jurisdiction where at least one
> contributor lives...
> > As I said, however, those steps could be dropped, but then we have to
> > ask every contributor to have their contributions licensed under this
> > license (and cross our fingers that we will not have to change it in
> > the future). We should also probably have to change the (c) portion to
> > list people that have contributed in the site or, at the very least,
> > say that SPI is not the (c) holder.
> Listing contributors would be nice.
> It must be done at least in comments, as long as contributors retain
> their copyright, so why not doing it in a visible way?
> N.B.: no need to Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop...
> :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
> Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
> Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Jabber - firstname.lastname@example.org
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net