On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:28 AM, David Joyner wrote: > 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.
+1 > 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? Technically, this is probably creating a "new license." We *want* people to re-use, re-mix, and otherwise employ them outside of the wiki, which is the whole point of the CC license suite. A pool of good slides/worksheets that are easy to pull from will be a very useful thing to have, I don't want it to get bogged down in trivialities. I think a footnote would be sufficient, and probably referencing "members of the Sage community" collectively would be as well (with full details if needed in the source). This would sufficiently unabtrusive and still give credit if anyone's concerned about that, and help us avoid the legal quagmire of public domain. There used to be CC licenses without attribution requirements, though they are discouraged: http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses . - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
