On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:37:43 +0200 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > >
> > > I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is
> > > such a license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation
> > > license [3] 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 do *not* think that the license you are proposing is a good one.
> (...)
>
> Maybe we should just use a simpler (i.e. technology neutral license)
> without explicitly mentioning that the source = WML.
Indeed.
The 2-clause BSD license I suggested matches your description! ;-)
Another good choice in the non-copyleft arena is the Expat (a.k.a. MIT)
license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
>
> > Clause 1 restricts where the license text must be retained: as the
> > first lines. What if I convert pages from WML to another format
> > where the first lines are reserved for some other use? It seems I
> > cannot legally do so!
>
> How about saying "either first or last lines"?
What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses?
>
> > 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.
Indeed.
>
> > > 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
Attachment:
pgpTUiqcCeqxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature