On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 9:23 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Should we consider creating our own "Sage documentation license"?\ > > -1 - the will only cause more license proliferation. > >> As was pointed out, "public domain" not only doesn't exist in some >> countries, it also isn't a license technically speaking. >> >> I am personally happy with the GFDL 1.3, but some might find it >> a bit of overkill. > > The GFDL requires one to add an invariant section to each document > published with it. That section is *pages* of extra input, so -1 on > that from me. >
I don't think this is correct (I'm talking about version 1.3), which has a "no cover text, no invariant sections" option. However, I just read GFDL1.3 and my impression that it allowed relicening under the cc-by-sa was incorrect (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html). In fact, it only allows relicensing of *wiki posts*. So, I agree with you that cc-by or cc-by-sa3.0 is better. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > We should just use some sort of CC to keep it simple. Even for cc-by/cc-by-sa3.0, I still wonder if that is overkill for some. If I take Martin's latex file slides.tex and modifiy it a bit, he must be acknowledged (in a footnote, presumably, but this is not clear). If there is any interest, we could probably put together a paragraph which would basically say what Martin said, but in more specific terms. I don't know if it would be legally necessary but would be a replacement for developers in other countires what we in the US call "public domain". Something which would be easy to copy+paste into a piece of latex documentation and give an indication to the reader that it is okay to modify or redistribute the latex code in any reasonable way. Something like: "Any original contribution that I, .__________, have made to this document are licensed cc-by 3.0, but with no attribution necessary. For details on this license, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/."; Does this seem reasonable? > >> Comments? Unless people think this is a silly idea, maybe I could >> start a new thread? > > That is probably a good idea. > > Cheers, > > Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
