[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licenses of Blog Posts

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:44:57PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> It would be nice if a blog post on bits.debian.org that state a license
> would be posted according to the license. (As it is a bit hard arguing
> you have permission to distribute something if it explicitely states a
> license that is not adhered to).
> For GFDL that especially contains:
> |
> | You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> | commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> | copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to
> | the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other
> | conditions whatsoever to those of this License. [...]
> and
> |
> | You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other
> | documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies
> | of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is
> | included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this
> | License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other
> | respects.
> |
> | You may extract a single document from such a collection, and
> | distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a
> | copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this
> | License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that
> | document.
> I think the requirement of the last paragraph is missing with the
> lastest blog post "Debian GNU/Hurd 2013 released!" on bits.debian.org.

The post was also published by its main author at:

And everything published in the website is under the MIT license, same
than everything published in bits.d.o by default.

But since the above link is rather unknown to people, I added the link
to the Hurd new item that was everywhere in the press to avoid people 
complaining about us copying from there without the license stuff, etc.
Looks like no matter what was done people was going to raise issues anyway :)


Reply to: