Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On 19 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña uttered the following:
> In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from the
> OPL (non DFSG-free) to some other license (DFSG-free). As it is, the
> current content is not GPL compatible (so it cannot be reused, for
> example, in documentation produced by the DDP project).
This is also troublesome since we say i the social contract:
When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> a) a proper license should be decided for the website.
> I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a
> license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation license  and
> explicitely mentions translations. In our case (the website) the
> 'source code' is the wml, but I leave references to other sources
> (SGML, XML) that might apply to other documentation that the website
> might hold.
I would be willing to license my contributions under the
GPL. I do not see why translations are any different than another
wml file added to the combined work, so I don't see why the GPL is
not a perfectly good license for the wml code.
> b) old contributors to the web site (i.e. all that have had CVS
> access to the WWW CVS are for the past 10 years) should be
> contacted and ask to agree to this license change.
As long as the licenses used are compatible, we may not need a
common license. Standard footers can be provided for inclusion for
> c) a note should be added to the Debian site (as a News item?)
> describing the license change (and the reasons for the change)
> and giving a 6 month period for comments.
e are following our social contract. There need be no
comments period for six months, we should just get on with it.
> d) new contributors during that period should be asked to agree to
> the license change and to transfer (c) to SPI (GPG/PGP signed
> e-mail would be a requisite for contributing, a paper trail would
> be even best)
What reason should people assign copyright if the license is
free? I have no intention of doing so, for any past or future
> 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"
No. While I am willing to change my license to the GPL, if
you want work under contract, my contract rate is US $250/hour. And I
have a boilerplate contract agreement you must sign, in order to use
> Does this sound like a reasonable plan? Who can help digging out a
> list of contributors and preparing an explanatory e-mail and license
> change notice for the website?
The copyright assignment does not sound sane, no.
Don't feed the bats tonight.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C