Hi Phil, You write about code, while my intent isn't to change any code license at all. My intent is to *add* license for non-code, particularly my non-code parts and future additions, these parts didn't have any license so far. Having two licenses is no problem at all, since code and non-code (docs/text) are two different things with very different licensing issues, hence FSF came out with GFDL and that's the whole point of CC's existence. Code and non-code are very easy to distinguish by the file type. This new license is endorsed by both FSF and CC, and even by Debian, or at least the goal is that they be compatible with all important entities.
Please be more specific what kind of disaster you expect here. [ Flagging this as "vanity" is yet another interesting attribute I see here, and I don't even want to go great length into this, some of us were contributing for many years, for a huge amount of time and watching names hidden, yes, it is bothering. For me this is the only kind of reward I may be getting for all this, and this doesn't cost money even. I'm just using some free licenses to protect my works, this is fair and legal, and notice that I've chosen fairly allowing alternatives to resolve this issue. ] Brgds, Viktor On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Phil Barnett <ph...@philb.us> wrote: > Szakáts Viktor wrote: > >> Two better links: >> >> CC-by-sa: >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ >> >> GFDL: >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html >> >> Brgds, >> Viktor >> >> On 2009.04.28., at 10:13, Viktor Szakáts wrote: >> >> I did some research and considering that ChangeLog counts as >>> documentation (not code), I've found the following option for >>> proper copyright protection for these elements of Harbour: >>> >>> - Creative Commons: cc-by-sa >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses >>> >>> - FSF GFDL >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License >>> >>> Both require credits to be given (attribution), cc-by-sa is also >>> compatible with Debian folks AFAICS. >>> >>> IMO we should protect *all* our docs with such license, this >>> includes uppercased files in root and docs/man dirs. I'd prefer >>> the Creative Commons license as it's much more known than >>> GFDL, but please comment, I'm not a lawyer. >>> >>> Brgds, >>> Viktor >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Phil Barnett <ph...@philb.us> wrote: >>> Szakáts Viktor wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> /* Copyright notice: >>> All text in this file holds the copyright of respective authors seen in >>> the entry headers if not indicated otherwise. Copying or other forms of >>> usage is only permitted while giving credit to author including his/her >>> full name, plus the text "Harbour Project" or "Harbour". In all other >>> cases, usage requires explicit permission from author. Exception: >>> Example >>> code falls under the standard Harbour license found in COPYING. >>> */ >>> --- >>> Before you do this, please pass it in front of the FSF and ask them if it >>> is acceptable to maintain the GPL status. Also, I believe you can only >>> change the license terms of code that contains your copyright. >>> >>> This only applies to text in ChangeLog, and specifically >>> states that everyone is aquiring this copyright note for >>> his/her own entries, so I'm not changing terms for anyone >>> else's work here. If this seems to be a problem I will >>> modify the text to apply only to my own entries. >>> >>> I'd appreciate if someone could test this against FSF, but >>> for me this'd take too much time, so I probably won't be >>> able to do it. >>> All you have to do is to email it to them and ask them if it will change >>> the terms of our license. I believe it does and should not be done until the >>> FSF says it's ok. Adding this anywhere in the project might negate our GPL >>> protection. That would be bad. >>> >> I think it is much too late to change the license because we will not be > able to find the original authors on all code. The alternative would be to > perform a survey and see exactly how much code is involved in that limit. > > Having two licenses, one for part of the code and one for another part of > the code would be a disaster. > > Is this all about Attribution? Nothing personal at all here, but Vanity is > one of the seven deadly sins and leads to many downfalls. I try to avoid all > 7 of them but at times it's very difficult. We are only human. > > If you really feel strongly about this and we gain community support I have > no problem with relicensing. But it's gotta be all or none. > > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list > Harbour@harbour-project.org > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
