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

Re: Team book licensing and editorial process



Hi Josh,

On 13/01/2025 00:49, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 10:07:37PM +0800, Blair Noctis wrote:
>> Hi team,
>>
>> Seeing the book is catching up (https://rust-team.pages.debian.net/book/ if you didn't know), I'd like to ask you to help formalize some aspects of it.
> 
> Awesome! I'm really happy to see this.

Thank you for laying the ground ;)
 
>> == Licensing
>>
>> (...) I'd suggest CC-BY-SA-4.0 since it's documentation, not code (albeit some small examples in it).
> 
> I would express a mild preference for picking something Rust-compatible;
> it's remarkable how often it ends up being useful to copy freely between
> code and documentation. For instance, consider the value of being able
> to copy a passage from the book into the code as a comment.
> 
> Given that, I'd suggest `MIT OR Apache-2.0`, like debcargo and most Rust
> code.

Yes this has been brought up once. I thought it wasn't too fit for non-code, but in another look it has been used in practice (e.g. TRPL).

Arguably, with CC-BY-SA-4.0 we are also

> able to copy a passage from the book into the code as a comment

with attribution alongside the passage, something like

	/// This passage is copied from the [Debian Rust Team book][drtb], licensed under (license).
	///
	/// (passage)

the same for both `MIT OR Apache-2.0` and `CC-BY-SA-4.0`.

But besides that, I have no strong opinion. If you (the principle authors) all agree on MIT/A2, I'm happy to use it.

-- 
Sdrager,
Blair Noctis

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: