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

[Tomasz bla Fortuna]

Dnia Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:15:48 -0600
Hannes Beinert <address@hidden> napisał(a):

> 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,
That's "Creative Commons". I found only nmap with such term (and it has
huge license information in manual)

> 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>
That's fine with me. GPL for manuals and close-to-technical-description
manuals which might be relicensed under FDL in future and if something
bigger is going to be created start with FDL, or I guess better,
CC-BY-SA 3.0.

I guess for now this is perfectly ok.


-- 
Tomasz bla Fortuna
jid: bla(at)af.gliwice.pl
pgp: 0x90746E79 @ pgp.mit.edu
www: http://bla.thera.be

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature