Re: [Otpasswd-talk] Changes in code and documentation. ;-)

[Hannes Beinert]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 08:58, Tomasz bla Fortuna <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dnia Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:40:17 -0600 Hannes Beinert <address@hidden> 
> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 07:58, Luke Faraone <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > send to list
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Tomasz bla Fortuna <address@hidden>
>> > Date: Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 19:53
>> > Subject: Re: [Otpasswd-talk] Changes in code and documentation. ;-)
>> > To: Luke Faraone <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > Dnia Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:34:42 -0500 Luke Faraone <address@hidden>
>> > napisał(a):
>> >>
>> >> It looks like you've licensed the manpage and associated
>> >> documentation under the GNU FDL. Just FYI, Debian only allows GFDL
>> >> documentation if there are no "unmodifiable sections", such as
>> >> front/back cover texts, or invariant sections. (see
>> >> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 for more info)
>> >>
>> >> No changes need to be made at this time, but just a word of caution
>> >> for the future. cc-by-sa-3.0 might be a better option.
>> >
>> > It wasn't really me, but Hannes who included LICENSE.fdl. At first I
>> > licensed README on GNU GPL, but that is for sure not best license
>> > for a README and I still haven't give it a thought.
>>
>> I apologize, I didn't intend to make things more difficult.  I
>> basically just followed the FSF licensing pattern that had been using
>> for the code.  As Tomasz points out, and as the FSF argues, the GPL
>> isn't really optimal for documentation.
>>
>> > FDL is pretty complicated that's true. I wonder what will
>> > savannah-"gurus" say for cc-by-sa-3.0 although it's completely ok
>> > with me.
>> >
>> > I just hope to keep this licensing as simple as possible and if
>> > possible have option to switch to BSD later (currently only GMP
>> > really ties us down a bit, but only a bit as it's LGPL). Can you
>> > sent your notice to Hannes/otpasswd-talk? (Even forward my reply if
>> > it's convenient for you?)
>>
>> I have no particular investment in the licensing scheme, and am
>> perfectly happy to follow whatever guidance you (Luke & Tomasz)
>> provide.  Thank you, Luke, for the Debian link above -- I remember
>> reading about this issue on the Debian list years ago, but I'm afraid
>> it didn't stick.
>>
>> My sense is that it would probably be best to license the
>> documentation, especially since leaving it unlicensed raises other
>> issues.  The GFDL 1.3 is slightly more compatible with the CC license,
>> and there is some indication that the GFDL 2 ought to be even more
>> "free", however it isn't published so that's academic.
>>
>> I guess it comes down to the following licenses:
>>
>> 1. GPL
>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>> Free, copyleft.  This is the option that seems to be supported by
>> Debian.  I do think that there are issues in trying to shoehorn code
>> and documentation into the same license, so I'm probably disinclined
>> to favor this license.
>>
>> 2. FreeBSD Documentation License
>> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
>> Free, non-copyleft.  This license may make it easier for transitioning
>> the project to a BSD license, I suppose.  The non-copyleft aspect
>> troubles me a little.
>>
>> 3. Creative Commons BY-SA v3.0 License
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
>> Free, copyleft.
>>
>> Based on what has been written above, it appears that you are both
>> leaning toward the CC license?  That would certainly be fine with me.
>> Should we make the change?
>
> I'm really rather not sure. Is there any tool with CC manual pages?
> Probably is, but I haven't seen/noticed such. I'm ok with FDL and I've
> already used it few times (even for an RPG game) but it's true that
> this 'invariant' parts, covers etc make it's usage harder. As long as we
> don't define nothing as invariant I guess it's ok.
>
> This is howto about it:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html

Well, I think the criticisms -- if I remember them correctly -- are
about the invariant sections, the so-called "transparent copies", and
the fact that the full FDL must be included.

Here are some links I came across.  They won't help much, but they may
provide some background.

     http://lwn.net/Articles/355546/
     http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/46938
     Slightly out-of-date:
        http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html
     https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docs/+question/37902
     https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/newtoubuntu/C/legal.html
     https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License

This seems like such a waste of time.

I grepped my man pages, etc, and could find any that used the term
"Create Commons".  It appears as though Debian is okay with the CC,
albeit with some reluctance, and it *seems* as though Fedora and
Ubuntu use the CC.  I think.  It's hard not to notice that the CC is
extremely common for the contents of websites.

I would *like* to choose the FDL, but it seems to have some real
obstacles -- Debian's position being the biggest one, IMO.  The CC is
a possibility, but as you rightly point out, there seem to be few uses
for documentation "in the wild" at the moment, except for standalone
manuals, where the use is not uncommon.

Staying with the GPL, no matter how awkward it is for documentation
is, I suppose, another solution.  And, maybe that's the best solution,
in fact.  Just stay with the GPL, make Debian happy, and if the FDL2
make Debian happy, then relicense the docs to the new FDL.  <shrug>

Hannes.